One hypothetical, read end to end
What to take to 1776 — and what commenters said each thing would actually do when you got there
What people chose, and what the thread said it would actually do
Across all 1445 captured comments the same answers keep returning — penicillin, a modern medical textbook, one of the three books actually written for this scenario, an offline copy of Wikipedia, and a way back home — and in almost every case the thread's own replies supply the reason it would not work: the mould needs a factory, the textbook needs a laboratory, the device needs a charger. What survives that treatment are the cheapest answers in the thread — handwashing, clean water, soap — while the largest single block of replies is not answering the question at all, but arguing about whether 1776 would have burned you for turning up with any of it.
- Penicillin is the most-repeated answer, and the replies underneath it explain why 1776 could not have grown any
- The most-upvoted comment in the thread is a modern medical textbook; its own replies argue you would have nothing to use it with
- Three real books were written for this exact scenario, and the commenters naming them own them
- Every device answer collides with the same objection: the battery
- The cheapest answers — handwashing, clean water, soap — are the ones nobody argues with
- A large block of the thread answers a different question: would 1776 burn you, or listen to you?
- Every quotation on this page is a commenter's own words, reproduced exactly and attributed to a source record
The top 10 from the comments
Ranked by how many distinct source records support each answer, before any category browsing.
Answers meant to win the Revolution outright
Yep! An AR-15 would made short work of them damn Red Coats.
What the thread said this would do: 56 records, the largest card in the corpus, and two objections recur so consistently that they function as the card's own review. The first is ammunition: a modern rifle is a club once the magazine is empty, and cased ammunition is close to a century away. The answers that survive that are the ones choosing a black-powder lever action, a percussion revolver replica, or the recipe for smokeless powder instead of the gun. The second objection is personal — one commenter points out you would be robbed or killed in your sleep for owning it, and a long reply proposes the way round it is a plausible cover story about a new British service rifle. The manufacturing-plans answers draw the harshest reply in the thread: a step-by-step list of the metallurgy, tooling and tolerances that do not exist yet, answered by a commenter citing an American gunmaker advertising a nine-shot repeater in 1756.
Yeah you'd get it stolen or murked in your sleep by even your friends if you had something like that in 1776
Limit: Everything in this card is what somebody typed in a thread about a hypothetical — including the dates and mechanisms commenters used to correct each other. None of it is verified, and several of these answers are contradicted elsewhere in the same thread.
What the replies added2
Yep! An AR-15 would made short work of them damn Red Coats.
Yeah you'd get it stolen or murked in your sleep by even your friends if you had something like that in 1776
Penicillin, and whether 1776 could have made any
There’s no other answer than penicillin
What the thread said this would do: 51 records, and the disagreement inside them is entirely about manufacture rather than value. The commenters naming penicillin treat it as the obvious win — the thing that turns a scratch, a childbirth or syphilis from lethal into survivable. The people answering them supply the industrial history instead: the Fleming strain grew too slowly to treat anybody, the strain that worked came off a cantaloupe in an Illinois fruit market, agar for plating was a century away, and mass production needed refrigeration and aerated tanks nobody could build. Two commenters offer improvised routes anyway — culturing on bread, then soaking and drying in alcohol — and one points out that you would still have to persuade somebody to take it. The limit this card keeps arriving at is not that penicillin would fail but that it would not scale.
So as far as I can tell they would be able to make use of it if given instruction, but without access to refrigeration or the technical ability to aerate large tanks of mold mass production would be impossible. It would just be generally harder in every way, I imagine sterilization and avoiding contamination would prove to be a pain in the ass.
Limit: Everything in this card is what somebody typed in a thread about a hypothetical — including the dates and mechanisms commenters used to correct each other. None of it is verified, and several of these answers are contradicted elsewhere in the same thread.
What the replies added2
The OG penicillin from Flemmings lab didn’t grow fast enough for medical use. Then after a world wide effort of collecting random molds and shit a mold off a cantaloupe ended up being a unique growth of penicillin and grew at a way faster than normal rate. Enough to grow and make medicine out of. They have no idea where the cantaloupe was collected from. So the penicillin we have would be the move. Just plate it on some agar and save the world. EDIT: They know where it was collected from but not where it was grown. 👍
Ignorant question here. What could they do with that back then with the tools they had?
Military hardware at absurd scale
A fully-crewed, nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. Ain't no way I'm gonna live out the rest of my days with no electricity.
What the thread said this would do: 50 records escalating from a rifle to a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, and unusually for a joke cluster the thread works the logistics anyway. Commenters point out that you arrive on land so the reactor cannot be cooled, that a carrier without its crew is scrap, that you would starve long before any boarding party got past the close-in guns, and that the whole plan depends on the manuals being aboard. Named ships recur — the Ford class, the Nimitz, the Gerald R. Ford, the Abraham Lincoln — alongside tanks, an A-10, a helicopter gunship, an ICBM silo and a series of nuclear weapons. The reason the card is worth reading is that the objections are better than the answers.
Ford class aircraft carrier. Nuclear reactors will go for ages, modern computers with power, lots of room for activities and immune to weapons of the time. Just hope they have manuals onboard. Or does that not count as one thing?
Limit: Everything in this card is what somebody typed in a thread about a hypothetical — including the dates and mechanisms commenters used to correct each other. None of it is verified, and several of these answers are contradicted elsewhere in the same thread.
What the replies added2
Wish granted... You will now be deposited with the Chinese aircraft carrier type 004 with its full construction crew at what is currently 1909 Paris St in Aurora Colorado in the year 1776. We apologize but due to ongoing construction at the time of transportation the reactors have not been installed yet. We do offer our congratulations on achieving the world's first aircraft carrier land speed record. Thank you for your purchase and have a nice day.
Yes and I will deliver it to British forces and hopefully stave off the rebellion
Gun violence as the argument for rewriting the Second Amendment
A modern gun. I want to give the US founding fathers an M16 and let them know how they need to be a bit more specific with the 2nd.
What the thread said this would do: 42 records and the longest argument in the corpus. The answer is simple — show them what “arms” would come to mean and let them write it differently — and it is met every single time by the same historical counter: private citizens owned armed ships, the Chambers gun and rifle-launched grenades existed, and rifles of the period were accurate to around three hundred metres, well past normal engagement range. Several replies argue the demonstration would strengthen the amendment rather than weaken it. Beneath that, a second argument runs about whether the founders would have answered school shootings with restrictions or with more guns, and neither side concedes anything. Nothing here resolves; the card is included because this is what the thread spent its largest single block of replies on.
Some big ass gun - not to help win anything, just to convince those guys what a terrible idea the 2nd amendment could turn out to be
Limit: Everything in this card is what somebody typed in a thread about a hypothetical — including the dates and mechanisms commenters used to correct each other. None of it is verified, and several of these answers are contradicted elsewhere in the same thread.
What the replies added1
Nope. The founding fathers would further embrace the 2A.
The exhibit: bringing a modern president, or the file on him
What the thread said this would do: 40 records, the thread's most repeated political answer, and it comes in two forms worth separating. The first is evidentiary: bring the news reports, the January 6 footage, a book on the presidency, and argue for tighter language while the language is still being drafted. The second is disposal — several commenters say plainly that the appeal is that he would no longer be here. The replies pull the first form apart from several directions at once: one commenter would go after the family tree instead, another argues the problem is 250 years of interpretation rather than any one man, and a British commenter asks whether this is really what America wanted. One reply imagines the resulting conversation as a single escalating monologue, which is as close as the card gets to a conclusion.
I'd take Trump. Hear me out, the constitution obviously isn't strong enough. If they saw what was 250 years in the future, maybe they'd tighten it up a bit.
Limit: Everything in this card is what somebody typed in a thread about a hypothetical — including the dates and mechanisms commenters used to correct each other. None of it is verified, and several of these answers are contradicted elsewhere in the same thread.
What the replies added2
Why not bring a whole ass history textbook? Get the most detailed one you can find. Lots of presidents and cabinets have been problematic.
Or we could just aee if the French wanted to take him. And. Maybe hang out in Paris. See the revolution from the front lines.
A phone, tablet or e-reader with the library downloaded
A smart phone with a solar charger and the entire Wikipedia downloaded would be useful
What the thread said this would do: 39 records, and this is where the thread does its most concrete research. Commenters look up and trade the actual numbers — text-only English Wikipedia at 25GB compressed, under 30GB, a school subset around 6GB, a medical subset at 163MB — and conclude that storage is not the constraint. Kindles, e-readers, ruggedised tablets and solar-panelled laptops are all proposed, usually with the specific reason that e-ink outlasts a backlit screen. The limits the card supplies are physical rather than informational: a dropped device takes the entire library with it, and one commenter argues the only sane use of the machine is to spend whatever life it has left transcribing onto paper.
The battery life wouldn't matter much between the two. A device like that would only be valuable if it could be constantly used and unfortunately the difference between a few hours and a few weeks would but pretty meaningless long term. If you're going to take a device from today you'd have to go for something not on the consumer market. You need an e-reader/phone with built in solar panels and you'd want to support an SD card so you could actually fit all of Wikipedia uncompressed so it'd be easily browsable. You could even include the images. Such devices exist today but they are all hobbyist projects or extremely limited examples from bigger companies.
Limit: Everything in this card is what somebody typed in a thread about a hypothetical — including the dates and mechanisms commenters used to correct each other. None of it is verified, and several of these answers are contradicted elsewhere in the same thread.
What the replies added2
Go with the text-only and f Wikipedia, which I’ve heard is pretty small, and an e-reader, which has a much better battery life.
Is that possible? a kindle just loaded with wikipedia actually sounds super fun
The Constitution and the court rulings, annotated
SCOTUS decisions Like "mother fuckers could we be a bit more explicit when we do this bill of rights thing?"
What the thread said this would do: 38 records, and the largest answer that depends on the year rather than the century. The proposals run from a modern annotated Constitution to the complete Supreme Court reports, a list of every ruling, notes on the Second Amendment and the three-fifths clause, and in two cases the tax code offered as a warning. The card contains its own strongest objections twice over: one commenter points out that in 1776 the Constitution does not exist yet and nobody would know what you were talking about, and another that pressing the founders on specific clauses risks losing the later amendments — the Thirteenth and Nineteenth are both named — or splitting the union before it starts. A third argues that no document survives a people unwilling to keep it.
Great idea, just make a highlighted list of the most obviously unintended interpretations of the constitution that have been used. "I know you guys think it's clear enough, but here let me show you..."
Limit: Everything in this card is what somebody typed in a thread about a hypothetical — including the dates and mechanisms commenters used to correct each other. None of it is verified, and several of these answers are contradicted elsewhere in the same thread.
What the replies added2
They'd probably be pissed that the ninth and tenth are effectively dead letters.
I can’t help but think that might backfire for you on a few issues, since there were very notably some amendments made later that we take for granted now (13th and 19th for example). You might get a few rights you enjoy now accidentally written out of there
The battery argument, and the solar workaround
A smart phone was mentioned which would certainly set their curiosity ablaze, but it wouldn’t be anything more than a fancy brick without Wi-Fi, etc.
What the thread said this would do: 37 records, and the single most persistent objection in the corpus. It opens with the most-upvoted reply under the phone answer — a few hours and then nothing — and then splits in two. The builders get specific: a chemical battery is easy, generating the electricity is easy, the hard parts are a stable five volts and a connector, and one commenter proposes an improvised wireless charger turned by a beast of burden as the path of least resistance. The sceptics answer on two grounds at once, the rules and the physics: a solar panel stuck to a battery is a second item and is too weak to run the device anyway. The card's own conclusion is stated by a commenter who points out that a book has none of these problems.
And only for a few hours until the battery ran out and you couldn’t charge it
Limit: Everything in this card is what somebody typed in a thread about a hypothetical — including the dates and mechanisms commenters used to correct each other. None of it is verified, and several of these answers are contradicted elsewhere in the same thread.
What the replies added1
The issue is that as soon as it breaks, you're stuffed. Drop it, broken screen? There goes all your knowledge.
Antibiotics in general, and the argument that they would breed resistance
Antibiotics. Did we learn nothing from Outlander??
What the thread said this would do: 36 records give some version of “antibiotics”, most of them in one or two words, and where a reason is attached at all it is personal rather than philanthropic: a scratch, a splinter, a paper cut, an infection a modern reader assumes will simply be treated. The objection this card carries is the one the penicillin answers mostly dodge — that handing a finite supply to a population with no idea when to stop starts the resistance clock a century and a half early and leaves nobody able to make the next drug. One commenter answers it by narrowing the plan to himself and the people around him, which is the only version the objection does not reach. A reply near the end of the card supplies the counter-anecdote and is immediately told that anecdotes are not the denominator.
A huge supply of antibiotics. Forget becoming famous for predicting the future, I’d rather casually eliminate diseases that people in 1776 had basically no defense against.
Limit: Everything in this card is what somebody typed in a thread about a hypothetical — including the dates and mechanisms commenters used to correct each other. None of it is verified, and several of these answers are contradicted elsewhere in the same thread.
What the replies added2
I learned that an activist chick figured out how to time travel to save scotland but didn't bring anything useful back with her to do it. she had access to everything from bolt action rifles to historical accounts of battles and she felt a positive attitude was all that was needed.
They wouldn't be able to understand when and how often to use them. When they inevitably become ineffective in a matter of decades they would just use more; you would be creating a superbug
Would 1776 burn you as a witch, or listen to you?
Not a chance. This is a good read: [link removed] tl;dr even common people in the Colonies were aware of smallpox and it significantly stunted recruitment efforts for the war. Washington instituted a policy of inoculation in 1777 to ensure there were enough healthy men to fight. The strategic value of a modern medical textbook would have been recognized immediately if you could get to the right folks.
What the thread said this would do: 36 records, and the thread's largest argument about its own premise. The reflex to shout “witch” runs through the whole corpus; this card is what happens when somebody pushes back on it, and the pushback is dated. The major witch hunts were a century past, this is the tail of the Enlightenment, the colonies were already inoculating against smallpox and arguing about the ethics of it, and one four-word reply points out it is the late eighteenth century rather than the twelfth. Against that: the Spanish Inquisition ran to 1834, witch killings continue in several countries today, and the year says nothing about where on earth you land. A second strand argues the real risk is not the stake but being disbelieved — dismissed as a crackpot, lobotomised, or simply ignored by the doctors of the day.
Not at all. This is the tail end of the "Age of Enlightenment" where old superstitions were done away and the scientific method really started to take hold. While there were holdouts elsewhere in the world, the American colonies were rather open with new medical practices. Outbreaks of disease were very common and they wanted any type of relief from seeing their children die. Go partner up with Ben Franklin and change the world.
Limit: Everything in this card is what somebody typed in a thread about a hypothetical — including the dates and mechanisms commenters used to correct each other. None of it is verified, and several of these answers are contradicted elsewhere in the same thread.
What the replies added2
And 1776 means they (obviously) speak english. And not some "well its sort of english if you squint" kinda thing, it's just english. These questions are always asking about going back to the fuckin middle ages and it's like, pretty much everything you take back will get you hanged as a witch or a spy, and you won't be able to communicate with a single soul to tell them otherwise.
I watched an interesting YouTube video where as it played, English was spoken and every 10 seconds or so it advanced 100 or so years. You would be surprised at when you start to actually understand what’s being said, it’s basically around 1500 or a little after that. Anything before that and it sounds really really foreign.
Not dying: the medicine answersThe largest block of the corpus, and the one its own replies work hardest to knock down. 124 records.
Penicillin, and whether 1776 could have made anyThe thread's most repeated answer, and the sub-thread of people explaining why the mould on its own would not have been enough.
Answer card naming what commenters would take to 1776, the reason they gave for taking it, and what the thread's own replies said it would actually do there: Penicillin, and whether 1776 could have made any
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Penicillin, and whether 1776 could have made any
Situation: Carrying the antibiotic, or the mould that produces it, to a century that had neither
Why readers chose it: 51 records, and the disagreement inside them is entirely about manufacture rather than value. The commenters naming penicillin treat it as the obvious win — the thing that turns a scratch, a childbirth or syphilis from lethal into survivable. The people answering them supply the industrial history instead: the Fleming strain grew too slowly to treat anybody, the strain that worked came off a cantaloupe in an Illinois fruit market, agar for plating was a century away, and mass production needed refrigeration and aerated tanks nobody could build. Two commenters offer improvised routes anyway — culturing on bread, then soaking and drying in alcohol — and one points out that you would still have to persuade somebody to take it. The limit this card keeps arriving at is not that penicillin would fail but that it would not scale.
What readers reported: So as far as I can tell they would be able to make use of it if given instruction, but without access to refrigeration or the technical ability to aerate large tanks of mold mass production would be impossible. It would just be generally harder in every way, I imagine sterilization and avoiding contamination would prove to be a pain in the ass.
Limit: Everything in this card is what somebody typed in a thread about a hypothetical — including the dates and mechanisms commenters used to correct each other. None of it is verified, and several of these answers are contradicted elsewhere in the same thread.
What the replies added2
The OG penicillin from Flemmings lab didn’t grow fast enough for medical use. Then after a world wide effort of collecting random molds and shit a mold off a cantaloupe ended up being a unique growth of penicillin and grew at a way faster than normal rate. Enough to grow and make medicine out of. They have no idea where the cantaloupe was collected from. So the penicillin we have would be the move. Just plate it on some agar and save the world. EDIT: They know where it was collected from but not where it was grown. 👍
Ignorant question here. What could they do with that back then with the tools they had?
Source-record spotlights
There’s no other answer than penicillin
Penicillin. As much as possible
Penicillin was already around in 1776. You wasted your shot
Related evidence elsewhere in the index
What the counts show
Across 51 source records, the most common observable tactic structure is “Change the sentence” (2 records). This is a wording pattern, not a measured outcome.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Observable tactic structures
Counts show source records whose wording matches the tactic structure; biological explanations remain commenter claims unless separately checked below.
Browse the original comments51 preserved records · 51 of 51 source records accounted for
Archive: 51 index entries preserve 51 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Antibiotics in general, and the argument that they would breed resistanceA one-word answer given dozens of times, against one recurring objection: you would be starting the resistance clock 170 years early.
Answer card naming what commenters would take to 1776, the reason they gave for taking it, and what the thread's own replies said it would actually do there: Antibiotics in general, and the argument that they would breed resistance
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Antibiotics in general, and the argument that they would breed resistance
Situation: Bringing a stock of modern antibiotics rather than the means to make more
Why readers chose it: 36 records give some version of “antibiotics”, most of them in one or two words, and where a reason is attached at all it is personal rather than philanthropic: a scratch, a splinter, a paper cut, an infection a modern reader assumes will simply be treated. The objection this card carries is the one the penicillin answers mostly dodge — that handing a finite supply to a population with no idea when to stop starts the resistance clock a century and a half early and leaves nobody able to make the next drug. One commenter answers it by narrowing the plan to himself and the people around him, which is the only version the objection does not reach. A reply near the end of the card supplies the counter-anecdote and is immediately told that anecdotes are not the denominator.
What readers reported: A huge supply of antibiotics. Forget becoming famous for predicting the future, I’d rather casually eliminate diseases that people in 1776 had basically no defense against.
Limit: Everything in this card is what somebody typed in a thread about a hypothetical — including the dates and mechanisms commenters used to correct each other. None of it is verified, and several of these answers are contradicted elsewhere in the same thread.
What the replies added2
I learned that an activist chick figured out how to time travel to save scotland but didn't bring anything useful back with her to do it. she had access to everything from bolt action rifles to historical accounts of battles and she felt a positive attitude was all that was needed.
They wouldn't be able to understand when and how often to use them. When they inevitably become ineffective in a matter of decades they would just use more; you would be creating a superbug
Source-record spotlights
Antibiotics. Did we learn nothing from Outlander??
Antibiotic Medicine
People keep talking about antibiotics, especially penicillin. I get scratches every day, mostly from sharp and dirty things that are hiding under a car, but I have never experienced a personal death. Penicillin almost killed me, so I guess I'll just take my sharp and modern axe with me.
What the counts show
Across 36 source records, the most common observable tactic structure is “Attach it to an existing routine” (2 records). This is a wording pattern, not a measured outcome.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Observable tactic structures
Counts show source records whose wording matches the tactic structure; biological explanations remain commenter claims unless separately checked below.
Browse the original comments36 preserved records · 36 of 36 source records accounted for
Archive: 36 index entries preserve 36 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
The prescription the commenter would not survive withoutAnswers where the item is not a gift to 1776 at all — it is the thing keeping the commenter alive.
Answer card naming what commenters would take to 1776, the reason they gave for taking it, and what the thread's own replies said it would actually do there: The prescription the commenter would not survive without
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
The prescription the commenter would not survive without
Situation: The drug the commenter already depends on, taken as a survival item
Why readers chose it: 26 records where the item is not a gift to the eighteenth century but a prescription: insulin, blood-pressure tablets, epilepsy medication, an inhaler, epipens, antihistamines, ADHD medication, painkillers. These commenters are answering a different question from everyone else — not what would help 1776, but how long they personally would last there — and several answer it in the same sentence that names the drug. The limit they state themselves is supply: a year's worth, a lifetime's dependency, and no way to make more. Two describe the specific mechanism that would kill them, one of them within weeks.
What readers reported: If I don't have my daily meds I wouldn't last long and I don't think they made my heart medication until recently. I would promptly die
Limit: Everything in this card is what somebody typed in a thread about a hypothetical — including the dates and mechanisms commenters used to correct each other. None of it is verified, and several of these answers are contradicted elsewhere in the same thread.
What the replies added2
I make *just* enough of my own that DKA could take a couple of weeks, if I could avoid hypos. I would need antibiotics though (no spleen).
Word. I would probably be disabled if not for modern antihistamines. Pretty sure I'm allergic to oxygen. And cats.
Source-record spotlights
Insulin. Am I the only diabetic here?!
Pack of Imodium tablets
If I don't have my daily meds I wouldn't last long and I don't think they made my heart medication until recently. I would promptly die
What the counts show
The exact phrase “my blood pressure” recurs across 2 of the 26 source records in The prescription the commenter would not survive without; the complete archive stays available below.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments26 preserved records · 26 of 26 source records accounted for
Archive: 26 index entries preserve 26 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Vaccines, and the inoculation 1776 already hadNominated as a breakthrough, then corrected by commenters pointing out what Washington was already doing to his troops.
Answer card naming what commenters would take to 1776, the reason they gave for taking it, and what the thread's own replies said it would actually do there: Vaccines, and the inoculation 1776 already had
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Vaccines, and the inoculation 1776 already had
Situation: Bringing immunisation to the century of smallpox
Why readers chose it: 11 records, and the card is mostly a correction. Smallpox vaccine is offered several times as the obvious answer; the replies point out that 1776 already had variolation, that Washington inoculated his troops with it, and that the cowpox technique and the word “vaccine” itself come from a practice older than the thread assumes. One commenter, older than the rest, notes that he has had the smallpox vaccine and younger readers cannot get it, which quietly removes the answer from most of the thread. The polio suggestion draws no correction, and is the only one here that would genuinely have been new.
What readers reported: They kinda had that in 1776…sort of. Washington famously inoculated his troops in Cambridge in late 1775 or early 1776 but obviously it wasn’t a vaccine, it was more or less just giving you smallpox and hoping you make it through.
Limit: Everything in this card is what somebody typed in a thread about a hypothetical — including the dates and mechanisms commenters used to correct each other. None of it is verified, and several of these answers are contradicted elsewhere in the same thread.
What the replies added2
That's what vaccine means actually. The original vaccine is from north Africa, they would run a needle and thread through a cow pox sore on a cow and then sew that into human skin, it created a mild illness and immunity to smallpox. The actual word vaccine is from is from Latin for cow. But the technique is African.
variolation. And 20 years later it would be discovered you could inoculate someone with cowpox, which caused a much less severe illness, so even if it took badly you most likely would survive, but you still got immunity to smallpox.
Source-record spotlights
That's what vaccine means actually. The original vaccine is from north Africa, they would run a needle and thread through a cow pox sore on a cow and then sew that into human skin, it created a mild illness and immunity to smallpox. The actual word vaccine is from is from Latin for cow. But the technique is African.
Small Pox or Polio vaccine?
smallpox would be the big one then TBF
What the counts show
The exact phrase “immunity to smallpox” recurs across 2 of the 11 source records in Vaccines, and the inoculation 1776 already had; the complete archive stays available below.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments11 preserved records · 11 of 11 source records accounted for
Archive: 11 index entries preserve 11 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
The books written for exactly this questionReal titles, owned and argued over by the people naming them — including the author of one of them. 72 records.
The rebuild-civilization books commenters actually ownThree named titles, compared by people who have them on the shelf, with the author of one of them answering questions underneath.
Answer card naming what commenters would take to 1776, the reason they gave for taking it, and what the thread's own replies said it would actually do there: The rebuild-civilization books commenters actually own
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
The rebuild-civilization books commenters actually own
Situation: One book written for a reader who has to restart technology from nothing
Why readers chose it: 33 records naming three real titles — The Knowledge, How to Invent Everything, and The Book: The Ultimate Guide to Rebuilding Civilization. What makes the card unusual is that most of these commenters own them, so the comparison is concrete rather than aspirational: one is described as about four times the size of another, one as more of an art object than a reference, one as the practical one. The author of one title, who also consulted on another, turns up in the thread and offers to take questions. The dissent is equally specific: several commenters argue the genre is written to entertain a modern reader rather than to be used, and one who looked into it says it never actually tells you how to build anything.
What readers reported: There are a few actually. The Knowledge: How to Rebuild Civilization in the Aftermath of a Cataclysm by Lewis Dartnell is the one that's considered actually useful.
Limit: Everything in this card is what somebody typed in a thread about a hypothetical — including the dates and mechanisms commenters used to correct each other. None of it is verified, and several of these answers are contradicted elsewhere in the same thread.
What the replies added2
Can you list some of the titles, please? My old brain cells are failing in the recall department... I've been racking my brain trying to come up with one from days gone by, that has diagrams, plans, and process descriptions for all kinds of basic (to us) tools, machines, and other useful items.
That is one I have. I also have How to Invent Everything, and I have heard good things about The Knowledge, but I don’t have it yet
Source-record spotlights
There are some books that are written for just such an occasion. A basic guide how to rebuild society if it collapses or how to reinvent things if you get sent back in time. How to isolate penicillin, how to get insulin, the kinds of things a modern textbook wouldn’t cover but would be incredibly valuable I have a couple of them, I think they are fascinating
The Anarchists Cookbook.
I have that one, it's very cool. I learned how to tie a ton of knots through that.
What the counts show
The exact phrase “how to invent everything” recurs across 10 of the 33 source records in The rebuild-civilization books commenters actually own; the complete archive stays available below.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments33 preserved records · 33 of 33 source records accounted for
Archive: 33 index entries preserve 33 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
A modern medical textbook: the thread's most-upvoted answer and its longest rebuttalThe single most-upvoted comment in the corpus, and the objection its own replies keep returning to.
Answer card naming what commenters would take to 1776, the reason they gave for taking it, and what the thread's own replies said it would actually do there: A modern medical textbook: the thread's most-upvoted answer and its longest rebuttal
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
A modern medical textbook: the thread's most-upvoted answer and its longest rebuttal
Situation: Handing 1776 the current state of medicine in a single volume
Why readers chose it: The most-upvoted comment in the corpus, and 24 records of argument underneath it. The case for it is that the theory is the valuable part: germs, disease vectors, the reasoning behind a test rather than the test itself, and a body of knowledge that would compound for decades. The case against is that the book assumes an entire absent system — laboratories, imaging, a pharmacy — so a reader in 1776 could act on almost none of it, and one reply works through a specific list of what modern medicine cannot deliver without indoor plumbing or trained clinicians. Several commenters counter-propose a history of medicine instead, on the grounds that it points at the next step rather than the last one. Running underneath the whole card is a side-observation nobody disputes: the physical object would persuade people before its contents did — the paper, the flat uniform pages, the photographs, the copyright date.
What readers reported: A modern medical textbook would help, but probably not as much as you think. You’d still have to convince everyone you weren’t some crazy person, and a lot of the basic ideas behind modern medicine, like germs causing disease, weren’t even understood yet. A book saying “use X-rays” or “run this blood test” doesn’t help much if nobody has the machines, factories, or background knowledge to make them. Something like the instructions for making penicillin would be huge, but even that would be hard because most modern books assume you already have a whole system in place to produce it. The biggest impact would probably come from teaching simple things that could actually be done with the tools they had at the time.
Limit: Everything in this card is what somebody typed in a thread about a hypothetical — including the dates and mechanisms commenters used to correct each other. None of it is verified, and several of these answers are contradicted elsewhere in the same thread.
What the replies added2
There are some books that are written for just such an occasion. A basic guide how to rebuild society if it collapses or how to reinvent things if you get sent back in time. How to isolate penicillin, how to get insulin, the kinds of things a modern textbook wouldn’t cover but would be incredibly valuable I have a couple of them, I think they are fascinating
First Chapter: Most definitely wash your fucking hands when delivering a baby
Source-record spotlights
A modern medical textbook would be incredibly valuable
Sure...it'd be a big help since most of the pharmacy isn't available in 1776.
Hope you're a doctor, otherwise that's just 5 pounds of very expensive paper
What the counts show
Across 24 source records, the most common observable tactic structure is “Create a default” (2 records). This is a wording pattern, not a measured outcome.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Observable tactic structures
Counts show source records whose wording matches the tactic structure; biological explanations remain commenter claims unless separately checked below.
Browse the original comments24 preserved records · 24 of 24 source records accounted for
Archive: 24 index entries preserve 24 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Manuals written for places with no doctorThe counter-proposal from commenters who think the textbook is the wrong book: field guides written for people with no laboratory.
Answer card naming what commenters would take to 1776, the reason they gave for taking it, and what the thread's own replies said it would actually do there: Manuals written for places with no doctor
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Manuals written for places with no doctor
Situation: A reference written for treating people with no hospital behind you
Why readers chose it: 8 records, and they are the most practical answers in the book themes. Where There Is No Doctor is named four separate times by different commenters, chosen precisely because it is written for health workers with no pharmacy and no equipment; a wilderness medicine handbook, a guide to medicinal and edible wild plants and a post-collapse medical manual arrive on the same logic. One commenter makes an unusual case for a dental surgery text, arguing that eighteenth-century dentistry was bad enough that visible competence in it would buy protection and a monopoly rather than suspicion. The caveat raised inside the card is that even this genre assumes some access to medication.
What readers reported: What you would actually want is the reference book given to health workers in rural areas of developing countries: [Where There Is No Doctor]([link removed] that gives you practical treatments and remedies if you don't have modern pharmacies and medical devices.
Limit: Everything in this card is what somebody typed in a thread about a hypothetical — including the dates and mechanisms commenters used to correct each other. None of it is verified, and several of these answers are contradicted elsewhere in the same thread.
What the replies added1
a dental surgery book. wouldn't be saving people from diseases and broken arms directly but it would have ripple effect on society. You would very easily become the most trusted person in 1776 during the sugar trade. Even with dental knowledge at the time, people suffered horrible dental pain and this was most exacerbated in surgery. You could use your power to make people conscious about preventative care, anesthesia, precision manufacturing for medical surgery, x-ray technology etc. You basically would speed up history back to where it is without looking way too suspicious like you are from the future. Just another Isaac Newton blending in that crazy society. Other technologies would rise from this. The best part is you will have lived a longer and rich life than anyone else during that time. Your community would no doubt make sure to protect you at all cost cuz you would have a monopoly. Heck the president may come to visit you
Source-record spotlights
There's also Where There is no Doctor It does assume access to doctors and medications (although not immediately), but it would still be useful for an aspiring 1776 physician.
Where There Is No Doctor
A wilderness medicine handbook would probably be more helpful. Modern clinical medicine is heavily reliant on the ability to run tests, imaging, etc. I know a doctor who was trained in Bolivia. He could competently diagnose pushing, prodding, and asking questions. He couldn't read X-rays. "And how is this *electricity* made?" -Some 18th century sawbones
What the counts show
The exact phrase “there is no doctor https www” recurs across 2 of the 8 source records in Manuals written for places with no doctor; the complete archive stays available below.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments8 preserved records · 8 of 8 source records accounted for
Archive: 8 index entries preserve 8 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
General science and reference booksChemistry, physics and mathematics references, chosen for the theory rather than for any single recipe.
Answer card naming what commenters would take to 1776, the reason they gave for taking it, and what the thread's own replies said it would actually do there: General science and reference books
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
General science and reference books
Situation: Carrying the underlying theory rather than any single application
Why readers chose it: 7 records that want the principle rather than the recipe: chemistry, physics, electronics, a volume of mathematical tables, and in two cases a stack of textbooks that would plainly break the one-item rule. The reasoning, where it is given, is that a principle can be applied to problems the traveller has not thought of while a recipe only solves the one it describes. Nobody here claims a specific outcome, and none of these answers drew a reply — this is the quietest corner of the thread, and the only book card where the commenters are not arguing with each other.
What readers reported: A modern science book that has complete contents on chemistry, physics, biology and technology (i don't know if that book even exist)
Limit: Everything in this card is what somebody typed in a thread about a hypothetical — including the dates and mechanisms commenters used to correct each other. None of it is verified, and several of these answers are contradicted elsewhere in the same thread.
Source-record spotlights
4 textbooks: Principals of electricity and electronic concepts, book on Physics, a modern medicine book, and a world history book.
Something to show everyone DNA.
A complete guide to modern Technology
What the counts show
This report keeps all 7 source records for General science and reference books together and surfaces traceable examples without converting anecdotes into proof.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments7 preserved records · 7 of 7 source records accounted for
Archive: 7 index entries preserve 7 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Carrying the whole library: Wikipedia and the power problemEverybody reaches for the same solution and hits the same wall. 129 records.
A phone, tablet or e-reader with the library downloadedThe most common shape of the technology answer, with commenters trading actual file sizes for an offline copy of Wikipedia.
Answer card naming what commenters would take to 1776, the reason they gave for taking it, and what the thread's own replies said it would actually do there: A phone, tablet or e-reader with the library downloaded
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
A phone, tablet or e-reader with the library downloaded
Situation: One device holding an offline copy of Wikipedia or a personal library
Why readers chose it: 39 records, and this is where the thread does its most concrete research. Commenters look up and trade the actual numbers — text-only English Wikipedia at 25GB compressed, under 30GB, a school subset around 6GB, a medical subset at 163MB — and conclude that storage is not the constraint. Kindles, e-readers, ruggedised tablets and solar-panelled laptops are all proposed, usually with the specific reason that e-ink outlasts a backlit screen. The limits the card supplies are physical rather than informational: a dropped device takes the entire library with it, and one commenter argues the only sane use of the machine is to spend whatever life it has left transcribing onto paper.
What readers reported: The battery life wouldn't matter much between the two. A device like that would only be valuable if it could be constantly used and unfortunately the difference between a few hours and a few weeks would but pretty meaningless long term. If you're going to take a device from today you'd have to go for something not on the consumer market. You need an e-reader/phone with built in solar panels and you'd want to support an SD card so you could actually fit all of Wikipedia uncompressed so it'd be easily browsable. You could even include the images. Such devices exist today but they are all hobbyist projects or extremely limited examples from bigger companies.
Limit: Everything in this card is what somebody typed in a thread about a hypothetical — including the dates and mechanisms commenters used to correct each other. None of it is verified, and several of these answers are contradicted elsewhere in the same thread.
What the replies added2
Go with the text-only and f Wikipedia, which I’ve heard is pretty small, and an e-reader, which has a much better battery life.
Is that possible? a kindle just loaded with wikipedia actually sounds super fun
Where commenters report limits
The battery life wouldn't matter much between the two. A device like that would only be valuable if it could be constantly used and unfortunately the difference between a few hours and a few weeks would but pretty meaningless long term. If you're going to take a device from today you'd have to go for something not on the consumer market. You need an e-reader/phone with built in solar panels and you'd want to support an SD card so you could actually fit all of Wikipedia uncompressed so it'd be easily browsable. You could even include the images. Such devices exist today but they are all hobbyist projects or extremely limited examples from bigger companies.
Source-record spotlights
A smart phone with a solar charger and the entire Wikipedia downloaded would be useful
Even smaller for the "school" version which excludes pop culture and other articles not deemed relevant for learning. Even with images it's like 6gb. There are also super small text only zims in the MB range for basic knowledge or specializations. here are all of the zim files For example: en_medicine_mini is only 163MB
My first thought was an e reader loaded up with books. My second thought is that it would die pretty quickly and USB C wouldn't be invented for another 250 years
Related evidence elsewhere in the index
What the counts show
The exact phrase “a solar powered” recurs across 9 of the 39 source records in A phone, tablet or e-reader with the library downloaded; the complete archive stays available below.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments39 preserved records · 39 of 39 source records accounted for
Archive: 39 index entries preserve 39 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
The battery argument, and the solar workaroundThe objection every device answer collides with, and the improvised charging plans that follow it.
Answer card naming what commenters would take to 1776, the reason they gave for taking it, and what the thread's own replies said it would actually do there: The battery argument, and the solar workaround
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
The battery argument, and the solar workaround
Situation: Any answer that needs charging, and the plan for charging it
Why readers chose it: 37 records, and the single most persistent objection in the corpus. It opens with the most-upvoted reply under the phone answer — a few hours and then nothing — and then splits in two. The builders get specific: a chemical battery is easy, generating the electricity is easy, the hard parts are a stable five volts and a connector, and one commenter proposes an improvised wireless charger turned by a beast of burden as the path of least resistance. The sceptics answer on two grounds at once, the rules and the physics: a solar panel stuck to a battery is a second item and is too weak to run the device anyway. The card's own conclusion is stated by a commenter who points out that a book has none of these problems.
What readers reported: And only for a few hours until the battery ran out and you couldn’t charge it
Limit: Everything in this card is what somebody typed in a thread about a hypothetical — including the dates and mechanisms commenters used to correct each other. None of it is verified, and several of these answers are contradicted elsewhere in the same thread.
What the replies added1
The issue is that as soon as it breaks, you're stuffed. Drop it, broken screen? There goes all your knowledge.
Source-record spotlights
A smart phone was mentioned which would certainly set their curiosity ablaze, but it wouldn’t be anything more than a fancy brick without Wi-Fi, etc.
I would imagine the purpose of bringing something like that back would be to then transcribe that info to paper ASAP. So it would have to last decades, just as long as possible to get the the most useful information out (penicillin, pasturization, germ theory, epstein files etc), and then anything beneficial after that.
Where is your signal coming from? Can 5G transcend time? Will your provider accept Continental currency as payment?
Related evidence elsewhere in the index
What the counts show
Across 37 source records, the most common observable tactic structure is “Change the sentence” (2 records). This is a wording pattern, not a measured outcome.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Observable tactic structures
Counts show source records whose wording matches the tactic structure; biological explanations remain commenter claims unless separately checked below.
Browse the original comments37 preserved records · 37 of 37 source records accounted for
Archive: 37 index entries preserve 37 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Wikipedia and the encyclopedias on paperPaper needs no charger, and the thread immediately starts arguing about how tall the stack would be.
Answer card naming what commenters would take to 1776, the reason they gave for taking it, and what the thread's own replies said it would actually do there: Wikipedia and the encyclopedias on paper
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Wikipedia and the encyclopedias on paper
Situation: The whole reference, printed, so that it never needs power
Why readers chose it: 18 records that solve the battery problem by removing the battery, and then collide with mass. One commenter estimates the printout at about ten Eiffel Towers high; the thread spends several replies converting that figure into other units, and one commenter argues that the question said take rather than carry. Encyclopaedia sets appear as the compact version of the same idea. The substantive objection raised here is editorial rather than physical: a large share of Wikipedia concerns people born after 1850 and would be useless on arrival, so somebody has to decide what to print — which is exactly the decision the digital answers avoid making.
What readers reported: It said take, not carry. But fair. My light googling says it would be like 10 Eiffel towers high
Limit: Everything in this card is what somebody typed in a thread about a hypothetical — including the dates and mechanisms commenters used to correct each other. None of it is verified, and several of these answers are contradicted elsewhere in the same thread.
What the replies added2
Maybe trim it down to just the useful bits. You might not need a synopsis of every Powerpuff Girls episode.
Does a Kindle loaded with wikipedia and with a solar powered battery attached count as one item? If not I would like to take some sort of "so you accidentally time traveled" book on science, agriculture and technology. One of those books that has everything from how to invent the wheel, to germ theory and astrophysics.
Source-record spotlights
A physical printout of all of Wikipedia
A printed copy of Wikipedia. Hand it to the government and hope they skip a few years of the tech tree for me.
A battery or an encyclopaedia.
What the counts show
The exact phrase “copy of wikipedia” recurs across 3 of the 18 source records in Wikipedia and the encyclopedias on paper; the complete archive stays available below.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments18 preserved records · 18 of 18 source records accounted for
Archive: 18 index entries preserve 18 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
A local AI model as the thing that answers the questionsAnswers that carry a model rather than a library, so the thing you take can be asked a question it was not indexed for.
Answer card naming what commenters would take to 1776, the reason they gave for taking it, and what the thread's own replies said it would actually do there: A local AI model as the thing that answers the questions
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
A local AI model as the thing that answers the questions
Situation: A model that can answer a question the library was never indexed for
Why readers chose it: 12 records, and the distinction they draw is a real one: a library has to be searched, a model can be asked, which matters when the question is “how do I make this with what I have here”. The answers run from a solar laptop with open weights on it to a purpose-built inference machine and, in one case, an entire datacentre with its own generation, offered explicitly as a test of how large a “thing” is allowed to be. One commenter works out that the recharging problem is solvable with a generator he could build himself. Nobody in the card raises the limit that matters most in 1776, which is that an answer nobody can check is worth less than a printed page.
What readers reported: A laptop with the best available local LLM and a scrape of [site removed] on it. I would be able to recharge it by building a generator, which I should be able to accomplish with my own knowledge, the materials available at the time and some trial and error, and it is a source of (even if not perfectly accurate) knowledge about how to build most things in the modern world.
Limit: Everything in this card is what somebody typed in a thread about a hypothetical — including the dates and mechanisms commenters used to correct each other. None of it is verified, and several of these answers are contradicted elsewhere in the same thread.
What the replies added2
Love this but what if the screen or some component breaks?! You’d have to spend a couple years transcribing everything onto paper backups first lol.
Franklin, fresh off the printing press and lightning on keys, would be like “okay what the actual fuck” on seeing a smartphone.
Source-record spotlights
Solar powered Laptop with text only english wikipedia (\~166 GB), every science ebook, any and all how to survive in x ebooks and the best AI that runs on it.
Bonsai ternary 27b is like 8gb hell yeah.
AI Suggested "**solar-powered, ruggedized, fully offline digital library"** but I think a greater question is who do you try and get in contact with to disseminate your ideas and to protect you. In the USA, I would think Ben Franklin is the obvious choice, but in asia or europe . In Australia I would a bag of seed, corn, wheat, carrots, beans to share
Related evidence elsewhere in the index
What the counts show
The exact phrase “solar powered laptop with” recurs across 2 of the 12 source records in A local AI model as the thing that answers the questions; the complete archive stays available below.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments12 preserved records · 12 of 12 source records accounted for
Archive: 12 index entries preserve 12 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Modern tech brought for the reaction it would getAnswers where the point is not the information on the device but the faces of the people looking at it.
Answer card naming what commenters would take to 1776, the reason they gave for taking it, and what the thread's own replies said it would actually do there: Modern tech brought for the reaction it would get
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Modern tech brought for the reaction it would get
Situation: Bringing modern technology for its effect on the people who see it
Why readers chose it: 16 records where the information on the device is beside the point. What these commenters want is the moment: a lit screen, a laser pointer in a dark field, a photograph of somewhere nobody present has been. Several are explicit that the reaction is the payoff — a wizard, a king, somebody worth protecting — and one describes a deliberate plan of talking the device up for weeks before producing it, then switching it off and lying about where the power came from. The replies attached are the same two objections as everywhere else in this theme, network and battery, and one commenter's summary of what a phone reduces to without either.
What readers reported: A fully charged smartphone with unlimited battery. Imagine casually showing people 250 years of future history and then watching their brains melt.
Limit: Everything in this card is what somebody typed in a thread about a hypothetical — including the dates and mechanisms commenters used to correct each other. None of it is verified, and several of these answers are contradicted elsewhere in the same thread.
What the replies added2
Until the battery is dead? Or until you realize you have no service...
They'll probably think you're stealing their souls.
Source-record spotlights
My iPhone. They’ll be bewitched.
I’d just turn it off and explain to them what I had for weeks, build the hype. Finally show them then turn it back off, I’d probably lie about the source of its power lol
A smartphone just to watch their reaction
What the counts show
Within 16 source records, 2 ask a question and 0 explicitly say they intend to try the idea; neither signal is treated as an outcome.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments16 preserved records · 16 of 16 source records accounted for
Archive: 16 index entries preserve 16 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
A camera, to bring 1776 back with youThe only answers that treat the trip as a round trip, and the item as a way of bringing evidence home.
Answer card naming what commenters would take to 1776, the reason they gave for taking it, and what the thread's own replies said it would actually do there: A camera, to bring 1776 back with you
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
A camera, to bring 1776 back with you
Situation: Documenting 1776 in order to bring the record home
Why readers chose it: 7 records, and the only ones in the corpus that assume a return journey rather than a one-way trip. The reasoning is documentary: photograph the land before it was developed, record the founders answering a question, leave a camera in a time capsule for 2026 to dig up. One commenter works the equipment trade-off in unusual detail — a crop-sensor body for battery life, a grip carrying two batteries, redundant cards, and why a film camera would be worse because extra rolls would count as extra items. The battery limit that dogs the rest of this theme is fatal here, because all the value is in the images getting back.
What readers reported: I'm taking a digital camera that I can leave in a time capsule for someone to find back in 2026. Photos and video from the founding of the country would be interesting.
Limit: Everything in this card is what somebody typed in a thread about a hypothetical — including the dates and mechanisms commenters used to correct each other. None of it is verified, and several of these answers are contradicted elsewhere in the same thread.
Source-record spotlights
Probably a DSLR. Maximize number of possible photos. Would love to document life and the land before a lot of development. Ostensibly a camera+battery grip+2 batteries in said grip+redundant cards+lens would be considered a single item. I would want to document as much as possible, and a digital camera would be very cool to show people from that time. Possibly an APS-C camera that takes the full size batteries as it should be slightly better on battery life. Like a Canon 7D series maybe. Smaller sensor but still uses the full size batteries. As long as I could find a grip for it. I could extend battery life if I brought a mechanical film SLR but the problem is I would only have the single roll in the camera, as additional film would be additional items. I would use a mirrorless but that would eat batteries quicker.
Am I visiting or staying? If visiting, I'd want to be able to take as many photos/video as I possibly could to bring back.
I'm taking a digital camera that I can leave in a time capsule for someone to find back in 2026. Photos and video from the founding of the country would be interesting.
What the counts show
Within 7 source records, 2 ask a question and 0 explicitly say they intend to try the idea; neither signal is treated as an outcome.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments7 preserved records · 7 of 7 source records accounted for
Archive: 7 index entries preserve 7 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
The low-tech answers commenters said would save more livesThe answers that need no factory, no laboratory and nobody's permission. 22 records.
Handwashing and germ theoryThe cheapest answer in the thread, and a long argument about what happened to the men who first proposed it.
Answer card naming what commenters would take to 1776, the reason they gave for taking it, and what the thread's own replies said it would actually do there: Handwashing and germ theory
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Handwashing and germ theory
Situation: Teaching a practice rather than supplying a substance
Why readers chose it: 12 records making the cheapest case in the thread: the intervention costs nothing, needs no factory, and works whether or not anybody accepts the theory behind it. What the card spends most of its length on, though, is what happened to the people who said it first. Semmelweis is raised and then corrected in both directions — one commenter says he was institutionalised and beaten to death for it, two others say the asylum story is not really about handwashing — and Lister is named as the one who made it stick. The lesson commenters draw from that history is a warning aimed at their own answer: being right in 1776 is not the same as being believed.
What readers reported: First Chapter: Most definitely wash your fucking hands when delivering a baby
Limit: Everything in this card is what somebody typed in a thread about a hypothetical — including the dates and mechanisms commenters used to correct each other. None of it is verified, and several of these answers are contradicted elsewhere in the same thread.
What the replies added1
He was also genuinely *kind of insane*, and the idea that he was thrown into the asylum over handwashing isn't true.
Source-record spotlights
First Chapter: Most definitely wash your fucking hands when delivering a baby
This is probably the most clear example of how high society, aka doctors of the time, viewed themselves as always in the right based on their own behaviors. And no damn person could tell them that they have been wrong their entire lives.
Honestly just wash your hands all the time. Most diseases are circumvented by that alone.
What the counts show
The exact phrase “the fight against” recurs across 2 of the 12 source records in Handwashing and germ theory; the complete archive stays available below.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments12 preserved records · 12 of 12 source records accounted for
Archive: 12 index entries preserve 12 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Clean water: filters, tablets and rehydration saltsAnswers aimed at what actually did the killing, including one that needs nobody to accept germ theory first.
Answer card naming what commenters would take to 1776, the reason they gave for taking it, and what the thread's own replies said it would actually do there: Clean water: filters, tablets and rehydration salts
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Clean water: filters, tablets and rehydration salts
Situation: Attacking dehydration and waterborne disease directly
Why readers chose it: 5 records, and one of them is the most carefully argued answer in the corpus. It proposes oral rehydration salts over any book on three grounds: that dehydration from dysentery, not infection, did most of the killing; that the mechanism is sugar and salt in clean water at the right ratio; and — the part that separates it from every other medical answer here — that nobody has to accept germ theory first for it to work. The rest of the card is filter straws and purification tablets, chosen for the commenter's own survival rather than anyone else's. No reply disputes any of it.
What readers reported: Skip the textbook and take the oral rehydration formula. Sugar and salt in clean water at the right ratio pulls fluid through the gut wall, and dehydration from dysentery is what did most of the killing then. No lab, no industry, and nobody has to accept germ theory first.
Limit: Everything in this card is what somebody typed in a thread about a hypothetical — including the dates and mechanisms commenters used to correct each other. None of it is verified, and several of these answers are contradicted elsewhere in the same thread.
Source-record spotlights
The survivalist water filter straw
A portable water filter would be a game changer for survival and health back then.
Just some high concepts from today, or even not too distantly in the past would save thousands, maybe millions. -Boiling water to sterilize bandages. -Sterilizing drinking water and medical utensils in general! -Administering boiled water with a little salt, lemon, honey for victims of sickness and dehydration. -Washing your hands -Coaxing a culture of penicillin from orange peel for antibiotics -Not drinking or eating from pewter (leaded) utensils, plates and cups
What the counts show
Within 5 source records, 1 explicitly report a benefit and 0 explicitly report a limit or failure. These are attributed experiences, not effectiveness data.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments5 preserved records · 5 of 5 source records accounted for
Archive: 5 index entries preserve 5 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Soap, sanitiser and masks: hygiene as the whole answerOne-item answers that skip the science and go straight to washing.
Answer card naming what commenters would take to 1776, the reason they gave for taking it, and what the thread's own replies said it would actually do there: Soap, sanitiser and masks: hygiene as the whole answer
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Soap, sanitiser and masks: hygiene as the whole answer
Situation: Hygiene as the entire answer, with no theory attached
Why readers chose it: 5 short records that skip the science altogether. Soap is named twice with the same reason — that people did not wash — and hand sanitiser, wipes and a pallet of N95 masks appear as personal protection rather than public health. One of them makes the point the rest of the thread mostly ignores: the traveller is the one with no immunity to whatever is circulating in 1776, so the mask faces inward. None of these drew a reply, and none of them needs one.
What readers reported: Soap, and lots of it. People were often really nasty back then, bathed not often if at all, etc.
Limit: Everything in this card is what somebody typed in a thread about a hypothetical — including the dates and mechanisms commenters used to correct each other. None of it is verified, and several of these answers are contradicted elsewhere in the same thread.
Source-record spotlights
Booty wipes and hand sanitizer.
Soap, and lots of it. People were often really nasty back then, bathed not often if at all, etc.
Pallet full of N95 masks and water filters. Otherwise I'm probably just going to die of some nasty disease immediately.
What the counts show
This report keeps all 5 source records for Soap, sanitiser and masks: hygiene as the whole answer together and surfaces traceable examples without converting anecdotes into proof.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments5 preserved records · 5 of 5 source records accounted for
Archive: 5 index entries preserve 5 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Skipping ahead: one industrial processAnswers that pick a single bottleneck and try to move the whole century through it. 47 records.
Fertiliser, rubber, steel and the processes behind themAnswers picking a single industrial bottleneck, and the reply arguing every one of them needs metallurgy that did not exist yet.
Answer card naming what commenters would take to 1776, the reason they gave for taking it, and what the thread's own replies said it would actually do there: Fertiliser, rubber, steel and the processes behind them
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Fertiliser, rubber, steel and the processes behind them
Situation: Moving one industrial bottleneck forward by several decades
Why readers chose it: 9 records that pick a process rather than a device: rubber tree seeds, the Haber process for synthetic fertiliser, oil refining, stainless steel, sewing and weaving machine plans. The reasoning is that most of these were only sixty or seventy years away and the explained principle was the missing piece. The rebuttal is the strongest technical objection in the corpus: several of these processes are gated on materials rather than knowledge — the steam engine waited on crucible steel, the fertiliser process needs pressures and temperatures nobody could reach — so the plans would sit unused. Two commenters add a moral objection rather than a technical one: better machinery in 1776 makes forced labour more profitable, exactly as the cotton gin did.
What readers reported: Rubber tree seeds. Securing rubber supplies was a huge part of the industrial revolution. Alternatively, the chemical process to make artificial fertilizer. Or a book on the basics of oil refining. Or the process to make stainless steel. Plenty of major inventions were only 60-70 years away from 1776 and probably reachable with their technology once the principles were explained.
Limit: Everything in this card is what somebody typed in a thread about a hypothetical — including the dates and mechanisms commenters used to correct each other. None of it is verified, and several of these answers are contradicted elsewhere in the same thread.
What the replies added2
I mean, they did lead to population explosions when they were invented (especially the fertilizer). I'm not sure why moving that up by a century so would be that big a problem.
That’s what we need, oil even earlier… Electricity earlier would have far greater benefits than oil earlier.
Where commenters report limits
Sewing machine blus prints. Or a collection of weaving, spinning and knitting machine blue prints and manuals. It just when sewing machines became functional not just prototypes. I could seize the means of production of one of the most importantand lucrative industries. Unfortunately it was during the time slavery was a thing, it would have made their lives worse, just like the cotton gin.
Source-record spotlights
Rubber tree seeds. Securing rubber supplies was a huge part of the industrial revolution. Alternatively, the chemical process to make artificial fertilizer. Or a book on the basics of oil refining. Or the process to make stainless steel. Plenty of major inventions were only 60-70 years away from 1776 and probably reachable with their technology once the principles were explained.
I feel like this would just be setting the groundwork for Napoleon with tanks which may cause more problems in the long run than solutions.
These all would have lead to a population explosion the would likely have doomed our race. Well, maybe not the steel. Perhaps knowledge of effective birth control would have been the best option.
What the counts show
The exact phrase “of the industrial revolution” recurs across 2 of the 9 source records in Fertiliser, rubber, steel and the processes behind them; the complete archive stays available below.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments9 preserved records · 9 of 9 source records accounted for
Archive: 9 index entries preserve 9 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Engines, electricity and electronicsWhere these commenters put the lever: not the machine, but the principle that lets 1776 build the machine itself.
Answer card naming what commenters would take to 1776, the reason they gave for taking it, and what the thread's own replies said it would actually do there: Engines, electricity and electronics
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Engines, electricity and electronics
Situation: Handing over the principle that lets 1776 build its own machines
Why readers chose it: 11 records choosing the lever rather than the object: electronics theory from vacuum tubes to transistors, a combustion-engine blueprint, books on solar panels and batteries, a metal lathe chosen by a commenter who reckons he could generate electricity with it himself. Several argue explicitly that electricity earlier would matter more than oil earlier. The card also deflates itself twice: one commenter points out the steam engine is the better target because it will burn anything, and another that almost every thermal power station since is still only boiling water.
What readers reported: Books on how to manufacture electronics, vacuum tubes, resistors, capacitors, transistors. All the theory behind modern electronics would be available to them. It would still take them a while to come up with everything, but eventually they would figure it out.
Limit: Everything in this card is what somebody typed in a thread about a hypothetical — including the dates and mechanisms commenters used to correct each other. None of it is verified, and several of these answers are contradicted elsewhere in the same thread.
What the replies added1
At the time you would be better off building steam engines as it can use any fire source... petroleum would need a lot of people and cash involved to get that off the ground.
Source-record spotlights
That’s what we need, oil even earlier… Electricity earlier would have far greater benefits than oil earlier.
The better move would be books on solar panels and batteries
Early steam engine prototype, kickstarting the industrial revolution 100 years earlier would be kinda neat.
What the counts show
Within 11 source records, 2 ask a question and 0 explicitly say they intend to try the idea; neither signal is treated as an outcome.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments11 preserved records · 11 of 11 source records accounted for
Archive: 11 index entries preserve 11 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Aluminium: worth more than gold until 1825The thread's favourite arbitrage, corrected in detail by commenters who know when the metal was actually extractable.
Answer card naming what commenters would take to 1776, the reason they gave for taking it, and what the thread's own replies said it would actually do there: Aluminium: worth more than gold until 1825
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Aluminium: worth more than gold until 1825
Situation: Selling a metal that was briefly worth more than silver
Why readers chose it: 12 records built on one real fact — aluminium was not isolated in pure form until 1825 and stayed more valuable than silver for decades afterwards — and the card is the clearest example of the thread checking itself. The plan is to arrive with foil, an ingot or the refining process, and sell. The correction is dated line by line: on arrival the extractable amount is essentially zero, trace amounts are about fifty years out, novelty jewellery seventy-five, and scalable electrolytic extraction a hundred and ten. Commenters then split over whether bauxite's abundance rescues the plan, whether chromium would be the better bet, and how you would hide the electrical apparatus.
What readers reported: Not to poop on your popsicle, but, the extractable amount at the time you appear is mainly zilch. It would be about 50 years after you arrive that trace amounts are discovered. It would then be 75 years after you arive that the novelty amounts would be used in jewelry. Electrolytic extraction technique for scalable extraction would be 110 years after you arrived. So, maybe you want to readjust your idea for the arrival timeline?
Limit: Everything in this card is what somebody typed in a thread about a hypothetical — including the dates and mechanisms commenters used to correct each other. None of it is verified, and several of these answers are contradicted elsewhere in the same thread.
What the replies added2
Not to poop on your popsicle, but, the extractable amount at the time you appear is mainly zilch. It would be about 50 years after you arrive that trace amounts are discovered. It would then be 75 years after you arive that the novelty amounts would be used in jewelry. Electrolytic extraction technique for scalable extraction would be 110 years after you arrived. So, maybe you want to readjust your idea for the arrival timeline?
Man i'd love to read the angry parchment about the jerk that showed up selling low grade aluminum.
Source-record spotlights
Documentation of refining aluminium from foraged ores. I'd keep it secret, sell the then very rare and valuable aluminium ingots for vast fortunes. Edit: I'd also fix the spelling and name. I'm an American but somehow ended up spelling aluminium the British way. Couldn't figure out why spell check always hated my spelling of it, until recently discovering that issue.
If all you wanted was money, the easiest (and cheapest) thing to bring would probably be a heavy-duty roll of aluminum foil from Costco. Despite being the most abundant metal in the Earth's crust, aluminum wasn't isolated in its pure form until 1825. And even then, it was so difficult to produce pure aluminum that it was actually more valuable than silver until the late 19th century.
They would have the ability to do things themselves, you know? Like, they can write where bauxite is in the world in the pages.
What the counts show
The exact phrase “of aluminum foil” recurs across 2 of the 12 source records in Aluminium: worth more than gold until 1825; the complete archive stays available below.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments12 preserved records · 12 of 12 source records accounted for
Archive: 12 index entries preserve 12 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
A vehicle, brought for the machinery inside itVehicles nominated as portable technology demonstrations, and the tank of fuel that runs out behind them.
Answer card naming what commenters would take to 1776, the reason they gave for taking it, and what the thread's own replies said it would actually do there: A vehicle, brought for the machinery inside it
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
A vehicle, brought for the machinery inside it
Situation: A vehicle taken as a working demonstration of later technology
Why readers chose it: 15 records treating a vehicle as a technology sample rather than as transport: a modern semi truck described as containing a piece of every major breakthrough since, a moped engine light enough to carry, a bicycle, a sailboat, a railroad. The objection arrives every time and it is fuel — one tank, and petrol is itself a refining by-product that does not appear until the mid-1800s — which pushes two commenters toward a Model T that would run on kerosene or strong alcohol, and a third to point out how constantly a Model T broke down. The bicycles are the only answers in the card that still work on the second day.
What readers reported: Edison Motors semi truck. Has bits of every major technological breakthrough for the next couple hundred years.
Limit: Everything in this card is what somebody typed in a thread about a hypothetical — including the dates and mechanisms commenters used to correct each other. None of it is verified, and several of these answers are contradicted elsewhere in the same thread.
What the replies added1
This is hilarious. Do you know how often model Ts broke down? All the time, tire punctures were frequent, the transmission used a cotton band that would snap, axles failed regularly... Yeah, running on other fuels would be great, but overall you'd be having a bad time.
Source-record spotlights
Edison Motors semi truck. Has bits of every major technological breakthrough for the next couple hundred years.
The engine from a Honda 90 moped , or from a Citroen 2CV (they weigh about 120#) They already had rudimentary battery tech at this point so a 12v power source wouldnt be difficult to develop. A combustion engine changes the game in 1776. No steam needed
This is hilarious. Do you know how often model Ts broke down? All the time, tire punctures were frequent, the transmission used a cotton band that would snap, axles failed regularly... Yeah, running on other fuels would be great, but overall you'd be having a bad time.
What the counts show
The exact phrase “one tank of gas” recurs across 2 of the 15 source records in A vehicle, brought for the machinery inside it; the complete archive stays available below.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments15 preserved records · 15 of 15 source records accounted for
Archive: 15 index entries preserve 15 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Getting rich instead of saving anyoneThe commenters who read the question as an opportunity rather than a duty. 61 records.
A map of the gold, silver and oil nobody had found yetAnswers that need no science at all, only knowing where to dig — and the replies about who was already living there.
Answer card naming what commenters would take to 1776, the reason they gave for taking it, and what the thread's own replies said it would actually do there: A map of the gold, silver and oil nobody had found yet
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
A map of the gold, silver and oil nobody had found yet
Situation: Knowing where the deposits are seventy years before anyone else
Why readers chose it: 15 records, and their appeal is that they need no scientific credibility at all — one commenter says so outright, ruling himself out of explaining germ theory and taking a geological map instead. The plan is to reach the deposits decades before the rush and claim the ground. The replies are the most historically pointed in the corpus: how would you fund and staff a transcontinental journey, where exactly would you spend the proceeds, and the territory is not empty. Two commenters redirect the plan to the Georgia gold fields as the reachable version, and one of them adds what happened to the people living there once the miners arrived.
What readers reported: A detailed geological map of North America showing every major gold, silver, and oil deposit. I’m not smart enough to reinvent the steam engine or explain germ theory to people who think ghosts cause fevers. I’d just take the map, travel out West 70 years before the Gold Rush, and quietly claim the land where the massive nuggets were literally sitting in riverbeds. I’d be the richest person on the continent without having to convince a single person that I’m a "wizard" from the future.
Limit: Everything in this card is what somebody typed in a thread about a hypothetical — including the dates and mechanisms commenters used to correct each other. None of it is verified, and several of these answers are contradicted elsewhere in the same thread.
What the replies added2
How would you convince a team of people to go with you on a several thousand mile journey through unexplored wilderness into territory fully inhabited by native Americans (and roughly a thousand Spaniards)? Even if you get a bunch of gold... where do you think you're going to spend it?
If it’s that detailed, there are probably deposits that were undiscovered but close enough to civilization to make it reasonable for an average person. Then you could invest the proceeds from that into building a team for larger or more complex mineral excavations. For what it’s worth there were a lot of places close to the west coast where gold just sat on the banks of the creeks and rivers, you could probably just hire local guides. The most dangerous part would be getting to the west coast because the Panama Canal wasn’t built until much later.
Source-record spotlights
A detailed geological map of North America showing every major gold, silver, and oil deposit. I’m not smart enough to reinvent the steam engine or explain germ theory to people who think ghosts cause fevers. I’d just take the map, travel out West 70 years before the Gold Rush, and quietly claim the land where the massive nuggets were literally sitting in riverbeds. I’d be the richest person on the continent without having to convince a single person that I’m a "wizard" from the future.
A map of every major mineral, coal, oil, & gold deposit untouched in 1776 so I can stake claims.
You haven’t thought this one through. Marking Saltpeter would give you the manpower to find the rest.
What the counts show
Within 15 source records, 2 ask a question and 0 explicitly say they intend to try the idea; neither signal is treated as an outcome.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments15 preserved records · 15 of 15 source records accounted for
Archive: 15 index entries preserve 15 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Gold, coins and cash carried backThe money answers, with a long reply thread on what happens to a stranger carrying refined gold and no local connections.
Answer card naming what commenters would take to 1776, the reason they gave for taking it, and what the thread's own replies said it would actually do there: Gold, coins and cash carried back
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Gold, coins and cash carried back
Situation: Carrying wealth back rather than earning it there
Why readers chose it: 24 records, most of them a single word, plus one long exchange that supplies everything the single words leave out. The case for gold is that money is money in any century and it buys safety. The reply against it is specific and cumulative: gold is heavy, there was no security, refined modern metal is conspicuous, you would have to explain where you got it, and a stranger with an odd accent and no local connections is an easy mark. One commenter argues gold is among the worst available choices because it already existed there and was worth relatively less than it is now; another lands on Spanish dollars for the same reason in reverse. The cryptocurrency answers are the joke version of the same instinct.
What readers reported: The problem with gold is that it's insanely heavy and there was no such thing as security so someone could just stroll up to your place and kill you; you'd have to find a person to sell it to, then you'd have to explain where you got it with people thinking you stole it, especially since it'd be super refined by modern tech. I'd probably bring that book on how to rebuild civilization and just slowly build things but pretending I'm a genius but using stupid logic. "I just figured that since food goes rotten, there had to be something causing it so I ran a series of tests using apples. Anyone can duplicate it". Less likely to be seen as a witch if you slowly start making "discoveries" in a public place like going to the bar and steering a coversation towards food sterilization or removing particulants from water.
Limit: Everything in this card is what somebody typed in a thread about a hypothetical — including the dates and mechanisms commenters used to correct each other. None of it is verified, and several of these answers are contradicted elsewhere in the same thread.
What the replies added2
The problem with gold is that it's insanely heavy and there was no such thing as security so someone could just stroll up to your place and kill you; you'd have to find a person to sell it to, then you'd have to explain where you got it with people thinking you stole it, especially since it'd be super refined by modern tech. I'd probably bring that book on how to rebuild civilization and just slowly build things but pretending I'm a genius but using stupid logic. "I just figured that since food goes rotten, there had to be something causing it so I ran a series of tests using apples. Anyone can duplicate it". Less likely to be seen as a witch if you slowly start making "discoveries" in a public place like going to the bar and steering a coversation towards food sterilization or removing particulants from water.
the thing is you did have 'men of science' back then. mostly they were teachers for the rich but if you did something like a proof of concept steam engine for a wealthy merchant. you could have safety in that respect. then you can go and do things like build a basic revolver or magazine fed gun. lets face it a sten gun or grease gun doesnt take a lot but the bullet manufacturing does. however you would be a military game changer for whatever country you found yourself in. then you do things like work out insulin, penicillin, cook up some meth for the soldiers to they fight better too whilst you're morally bankrupt. the industrial buildup would take a lifetime but by the time you're done you've rocketed through the industrial revolution and could potentially reach microchips and pre-modern computing. in the 1800's
Source-record spotlights
I’ve thought about this very question a number of times. As a woman, and even as a man, you’d have to tread very carefully at first and try hard to blend in until you got the lay of the land. You’d be in culture shock. You’d have to find a way to live and eat. By no means could you talk about where you came from and all of the wonders of the future. Because someone, I guarantee it, would decide that you were a witch or a warlock or quite mad. If you got real lucky and found someone capable of understanding you and all you bring with you in terms of future knowledge, you would both still have to be very careful. This is why I thought bringing gold could help you survive. You could wrap yourself in riches and be respected and relatively safe as long as you were exceedingly cautious.
I would take as many Spanish Dollars as I could carry. At least then I could start transacting and start a business.
Also most people here are assuming they want to better the world what about a F ton of gold ?
What the counts show
The exact phrase “youd have to find a” recurs across 2 of the 24 source records in Gold, coins and cash carried back; the complete archive stays available below.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments24 preserved records · 24 of 24 source records accounted for
Archive: 24 index entries preserve 24 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
The sports almanac, and betting on what you already knowThe Back to the Future answer, given both straight and as a joke, and the reply that checks its dates.
Answer card naming what commenters would take to 1776, the reason they gave for taking it, and what the thread's own replies said it would actually do there: The sports almanac, and betting on what you already know
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
The sports almanac, and betting on what you already know
Situation: Betting on results you already know
Why readers chose it: 14 records, and the answer is a film reference before it is a plan: Gray's Sports Almanac is named repeatedly, sometimes with the film's own date range attached. What lifts the card above a running joke is that commenters keep testing it. One points out that an almanac of 1950–2000 statistics is no use whatever in 1776; another proposes a 1777–1790 almanac as the version that would actually pay; a third notes it may take a while to pay out at all. One wants major historical events added, not to change anything, but to avoid being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
What readers reported: Obviously should have gone for Grays Sports Almanac: Complete Sports Statistics 1776-2000
Limit: Everything in this card is what somebody typed in a thread about a hypothetical — including the dates and mechanisms commenters used to correct each other. None of it is verified, and several of these answers are contradicted elsewhere in the same thread.
What the replies added2
Obviously should have gone for Grays Sports Almanac: Complete Sports Statistics 1776-2000
The hoop stick hitting game had an insane season in 1788
Source-record spotlights
*Grays Sports Almanac: Complete Sports Statistics 1950-2000*
Gray's Sports Almanac. May take a while to pay out, however.
I'd love it even more if it included a timeline of major historical events. Not that I'm planning to alter the course of history. I just want to win a few sure-thing bets and maybe avoid accidentally being at the wrong place at the wrong time.
What the counts show
The exact phrase “grays sports almanac complete sports statistics” recurs across 2 of the 14 source records in The sports almanac, and betting on what you already know; the complete archive stays available below.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments14 preserved records · 14 of 14 source records accounted for
Archive: 14 index entries preserve 14 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Land, patents and a business built on one modern ideaAnswers that convert the trip into a business rather than a windfall.
Answer card naming what commenters would take to 1776, the reason they gave for taking it, and what the thread's own replies said it would actually do there: Land, patents and a business built on one modern idea
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Land, patents and a business built on one modern idea
Situation: Turning one modern idea into a going concern rather than a windfall
Why readers chose it: 8 records that convert the trip into a business: stake land around the Falls of the Ohio before the war ends and sell lots, file patents, build a cotton gin, go into partnership with Franklin, invent an alternative to the corset. What separates these from the gold answers is that they need a local partner and years of work, and the commenters accept that. Two of them attract the same correction the map answers get — the land was inhabited — and the cotton gin proposal is the one place in the thread where somebody names a money-making plan whose actual historical effect was to entrench slavery, and says so in the same comment.
What readers reported: I would probably take a huge sack of water purification tablets. Then head out stake out all kinds of land around the Falls of the Ohio before the end of the war. Get rich selling lots.
Limit: Everything in this card is what somebody typed in a thread about a hypothetical — including the dates and mechanisms commenters used to correct each other. None of it is verified, and several of these answers are contradicted elsewhere in the same thread.
What the replies added2
You know that wasn't just uninhabited land, right?
Dude was harnessing lightning. He had it figured out.
Source-record spotlights
Not a bad idea. You could show it to Ben Franklin and go into business together.
They ostracized Ignaz Semmelweis for suggesting that though. It wasn't until Joseph Lister came around that they actually started doing something. I'd bring the plans for a the cotton gin, build a huge factory and then dominate the cotton market.
Well obviously. The money will hopefully turn the tide at tippecanoe
What the counts show
The exact phrase “the cotton gin” recurs across 2 of the 8 source records in Land, patents and a business built on one modern idea; the complete archive stays available below.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments8 preserved records · 8 of 8 source records accounted for
Archive: 8 index entries preserve 8 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
A message for the men writing the ConstitutionThe answers that exploit the specific year: in 1776 the drafting room is still open. 156 records.
The Constitution and the court rulings, annotatedAnswers built around a document rather than an object, and the replies arguing which later amendments you would be risking.
Answer card naming what commenters would take to 1776, the reason they gave for taking it, and what the thread's own replies said it would actually do there: The Constitution and the court rulings, annotated
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
The Constitution and the court rulings, annotated
Situation: Bringing the document back to its own drafting room, marked up
Why readers chose it: 38 records, and the largest answer that depends on the year rather than the century. The proposals run from a modern annotated Constitution to the complete Supreme Court reports, a list of every ruling, notes on the Second Amendment and the three-fifths clause, and in two cases the tax code offered as a warning. The card contains its own strongest objections twice over: one commenter points out that in 1776 the Constitution does not exist yet and nobody would know what you were talking about, and another that pressing the founders on specific clauses risks losing the later amendments — the Thirteenth and Nineteenth are both named — or splitting the union before it starts. A third argues that no document survives a people unwilling to keep it.
What readers reported: Great idea, just make a highlighted list of the most obviously unintended interpretations of the constitution that have been used. "I know you guys think it's clear enough, but here let me show you..."
Limit: Everything in this card is what somebody typed in a thread about a hypothetical — including the dates and mechanisms commenters used to correct each other. None of it is verified, and several of these answers are contradicted elsewhere in the same thread.
What the replies added2
They'd probably be pissed that the ninth and tenth are effectively dead letters.
I can’t help but think that might backfire for you on a few issues, since there were very notably some amendments made later that we take for granted now (13th and 19th for example). You might get a few rights you enjoy now accidentally written out of there
Source-record spotlights
SCOTUS decisions Like "mother fuckers could we be a bit more explicit when we do this bill of rights thing?"
I'm gonna take a diagram of the current house and Senate and show these dumb fucks creating the govt how their stupidity will fuck up the nation in the future and force them to reconsider how the govt of the United states is formed.
The Declaration of Independence
Related evidence elsewhere in the index
What the counts show
Across 38 source records, the most common observable tactic structure is “Turn it into a game” (2 records). This is a wording pattern, not a measured outcome.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Observable tactic structures
Counts show source records whose wording matches the tactic structure; biological explanations remain commenter claims unless separately checked below.
Browse the original comments38 preserved records · 38 of 38 source records accounted for
Archive: 38 index entries preserve 38 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
A history of the next 250 yearsThe general-purpose version of the same idea: hand them the outcome and let them decide what to do about it.
Answer card naming what commenters would take to 1776, the reason they gave for taking it, and what the thread's own replies said it would actually do there: A history of the next 250 years
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
A history of the next 250 years
Situation: Handing them the outcome instead of the instructions
Why readers chose it: 19 records choosing a history book, on the reasoning that the founders were perfectly capable of drawing their own conclusions if they could see the results. What each commenter wants shown is usually stated: Civil War casualties, the Trail of Tears, Japanese internment, the world wars, the last decade of politics. Two have a different use for the same object — knowing which situations to avoid, and being treated as a prophet who is never wrong. The weakness the card exposes without quite naming is that a history book is the one answer here whose value depends entirely on being believed.
What readers reported: A comprehensive history of the last 250 years so the founders will better choices in forming our constitution and govt so we hopefully dont end up with the 2 party, corporate owned, shitshow that we have
Limit: Everything in this card is what somebody typed in a thread about a hypothetical — including the dates and mechanisms commenters used to correct each other. None of it is verified, and several of these answers are contradicted elsewhere in the same thread.
What the replies added2
Great idea, just make a highlighted list of the most obviously unintended interpretations of the constitution that have been used. "I know you guys think it's clear enough, but here let me show you..."
But once you started sharing info, wouldn’t that change the time line? Say you out Benedict Arnold or provide info so the (siege)Battle of Charleston, so that the Americans can sneak out forces before unconditionally surrendering…. The ripples might change the rest of your history book
Source-record spotlights
Why not bring a whole ass history textbook? Get the most detailed one you can find. Lots of presidents and cabinets have been problematic.
A comprehensive history of the last 250 years so the founders will better choices in forming our constitution and govt so we hopefully dont end up with the 2 party, corporate owned, shitshow that we have
A modern government textbook. I want those motherfuckers to look socialism in the eyes.
What the counts show
The exact phrase “us history book” recurs across 2 of the 19 source records in A history of the next 250 years; the complete archive stays available below.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments19 preserved records · 19 of 19 source records accounted for
Archive: 19 index entries preserve 19 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
The exhibit: bringing a modern president, or the file on himThe thread's most repeated political answer, offered both as an argument to the Congress and as a way of getting rid of him.
Answer card naming what commenters would take to 1776, the reason they gave for taking it, and what the thread's own replies said it would actually do there: The exhibit: bringing a modern president, or the file on him
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
The exhibit: bringing a modern president, or the file on him
Situation: Producing a person, or the file on one, as evidence to the Congress
Why readers chose it: 40 records, the thread's most repeated political answer, and it comes in two forms worth separating. The first is evidentiary: bring the news reports, the January 6 footage, a book on the presidency, and argue for tighter language while the language is still being drafted. The second is disposal — several commenters say plainly that the appeal is that he would no longer be here. The replies pull the first form apart from several directions at once: one commenter would go after the family tree instead, another argues the problem is 250 years of interpretation rather than any one man, and a British commenter asks whether this is really what America wanted. One reply imagines the resulting conversation as a single escalating monologue, which is as close as the card gets to a conclusion.
What readers reported: I'd take Trump. Hear me out, the constitution obviously isn't strong enough. If they saw what was 250 years in the future, maybe they'd tighten it up a bit.
Limit: Everything in this card is what somebody typed in a thread about a hypothetical — including the dates and mechanisms commenters used to correct each other. None of it is verified, and several of these answers are contradicted elsewhere in the same thread.
What the replies added2
Why not bring a whole ass history textbook? Get the most detailed one you can find. Lots of presidents and cabinets have been problematic.
Or we could just aee if the French wanted to take him. And. Maybe hang out in Paris. See the revolution from the front lines.
Where commenters report limits
A news article about trump and just leave it on Washington’s desk as a warning
Source-record spotlights
I'd take Trump. Hear me out, the constitution obviously isn't strong enough. If they saw what was 250 years in the future, maybe they'd tighten it up a bit.
A book about the Trump presidency so the Framers know they have to write some things differently when they put the Constitution together.
The full J6 report
Related evidence elsewhere in the index
What the counts show
The exact phrase “the founding fathers” recurs across 5 of the 40 source records in The exhibit: bringing a modern president, or the file on him; the complete archive stays available below.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments40 preserved records · 40 of 40 source records accounted for
Archive: 40 index entries preserve 40 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Slavery, and the war it causedThe answers aimed at the founding compromise, and the commenters who reply that 1776 is already too late to fix it.
Answer card naming what commenters would take to 1776, the reason they gave for taking it, and what the thread's own replies said it would actually do there: Slavery, and the war it caused
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Slavery, and the war it caused
Situation: Aiming the trip at the founding compromise itself
Why readers chose it: 17 records, and the most serious disagreement in the political themes. The proposals are a history of the Civil War, a military history sold to Washington on condition that he frees the people he enslaved, the emancipation proclamation, a photograph of Obama's swearing-in, and A People's History, which one commenter intends to use on a few founders directly. The replies are unusually hard on all of it: that the compromise existed because the states could not agree and forcing it would produce two countries rather than one, that industrialisation is what drove the wedge in the first place, and that by 1776 the damage is already done. One commenter makes the sharpest point in the card by analogy — a stranger describing a catastrophe two centuries out would be received about as well as a warning about the climate is received now.
What readers reported: A detailed history of the country up to and including the civil war. If the founding fathers could have seen what it would have done to the country and weakened us to the point that the country could have nearly failed in less than 90 years, they might consider outlawing slavery earlier.
Limit: Everything in this card is what somebody typed in a thread about a hypothetical — including the dates and mechanisms commenters used to correct each other. None of it is verified, and several of these answers are contradicted elsewhere in the same thread.
What the replies added2
Something else I find very intriguing that could be interesting is the property requirement to vote. Of course it’s long gone now, but the idea at the time was that people who owned property could be trusted to vote with future generations’ benefit in mind, since the property would be passed down. Obviously that’s no longer the way our society operates, so I wonder if/what the founding fathers would come up with instead to ensure virtuous voters if they knew property wouldn’t stick
Yeah... I think a lot of people here are failing to realize how flawed the founders, the people of that time, and the people of our time all are. Like, some person claiming to be a time traveller showing the colonists the consequences of slavery, or gun violence, or women's right to vote, would sway them about as much as some loon today claiming that most of the coastline is under water, the average temperature of earth has risen several degrees causing famine and the acidification of the oceans a hundred years from now. That guy would get laughed at by a decent portion of the population while the portion that cares about the warning remains powerless to do anything with the information.
Where commenters report limits
Yeah... I think a lot of people here are failing to realize how flawed the founders, the people of that time, and the people of our time all are. Like, some person claiming to be a time traveller showing the colonists the consequences of slavery, or gun violence, or women's right to vote, would sway them about as much as some loon today claiming that most of the coastline is under water, the average temperature of earth has risen several degrees causing famine and the acidification of the oceans a hundred years from now. That guy would get laughed at by a decent portion of the population while the portion that cares about the warning remains powerless to do anything with the information.
Source-record spotlights
One-volume military history of the War for Independence. I'll sell it to George Washington for some substantial sum of money + him freeing all his slaves immediately. If he doesn't take the deal, I'll bludgeon him with the book, and we just get to be British from now on.
Best to let the union know that after the confederates lose punish the absolute fuck out of them with no mercy. No kid gloves.
A copy of the emancipation proclamation
Related evidence elsewhere in the index
What the counts show
Across 17 source records, the most common observable tactic structure is “Turn it into a game” (2 records). This is a wording pattern, not a measured outcome.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Observable tactic structures
Counts show source records whose wording matches the tactic structure; biological explanations remain commenter claims unless separately checked below.
Browse the original comments17 preserved records · 17 of 17 source records accounted for
Archive: 17 index entries preserve 17 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Gun violence as the argument for rewriting the Second AmendmentA recurring answer that turns into the thread's longest argument, with 18th-century repeating firearms entered as counter-evidence.
Answer card naming what commenters would take to 1776, the reason they gave for taking it, and what the thread's own replies said it would actually do there: Gun violence as the argument for rewriting the Second Amendment
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Gun violence as the argument for rewriting the Second Amendment
Situation: Using a modern weapon as an argument about the amendment being drafted
Why readers chose it: 42 records and the longest argument in the corpus. The answer is simple — show them what “arms” would come to mean and let them write it differently — and it is met every single time by the same historical counter: private citizens owned armed ships, the Chambers gun and rifle-launched grenades existed, and rifles of the period were accurate to around three hundred metres, well past normal engagement range. Several replies argue the demonstration would strengthen the amendment rather than weaken it. Beneath that, a second argument runs about whether the founders would have answered school shootings with restrictions or with more guns, and neither side concedes anything. Nothing here resolves; the card is included because this is what the thread spent its largest single block of replies on.
What readers reported: Some big ass gun - not to help win anything, just to convince those guys what a terrible idea the 2nd amendment could turn out to be
Limit: Everything in this card is what somebody typed in a thread about a hypothetical — including the dates and mechanisms commenters used to correct each other. None of it is verified, and several of these answers are contradicted elsewhere in the same thread.
What the replies added1
Nope. The founding fathers would further embrace the 2A.
Source-record spotlights
A modern gun. I want to give the US founding fathers an M16 and let them know how they need to be a bit more specific with the 2nd.
Yeah there was one guy that said "if he wants a ship cannon, he can have a fucking ship cannon."
That actually might have them rethink the 2nd amendment
Related evidence elsewhere in the index
What the counts show
Across 42 source records, the most common observable tactic structure is “Turn it into a game” (2 records). This is a wording pattern, not a measured outcome.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Observable tactic structures
Counts show source records whose wording matches the tactic structure; biological explanations remain commenter claims unless separately checked below.
Browse the original comments42 preserved records · 42 of 42 source records accounted for
Archive: 42 index entries preserve 42 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Weapons, and the warWhere the thread stops being a thought experiment about knowledge and becomes one about force. 142 records.
Answers meant to win the Revolution outrightFirearms as the answer, and the two objections that arrive every time: the ammunition, and what happens to you for owning one.
Answer card naming what commenters would take to 1776, the reason they gave for taking it, and what the thread's own replies said it would actually do there: Answers meant to win the Revolution outright
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Answers meant to win the Revolution outright
Situation: Arriving armed, and what the thread said happens to you next
Why readers chose it: 56 records, the largest card in the corpus, and two objections recur so consistently that they function as the card's own review. The first is ammunition: a modern rifle is a club once the magazine is empty, and cased ammunition is close to a century away. The answers that survive that are the ones choosing a black-powder lever action, a percussion revolver replica, or the recipe for smokeless powder instead of the gun. The second objection is personal — one commenter points out you would be robbed or killed in your sleep for owning it, and a long reply proposes the way round it is a plausible cover story about a new British service rifle. The manufacturing-plans answers draw the harshest reply in the thread: a step-by-step list of the metallurgy, tooling and tolerances that do not exist yet, answered by a commenter citing an American gunmaker advertising a nine-shot repeater in 1756.
What readers reported: Yeah you'd get it stolen or murked in your sleep by even your friends if you had something like that in 1776
Limit: Everything in this card is what somebody typed in a thread about a hypothetical — including the dates and mechanisms commenters used to correct each other. None of it is verified, and several of these answers are contradicted elsewhere in the same thread.
What the replies added2
Yep! An AR-15 would made short work of them damn Red Coats.
Yeah you'd get it stolen or murked in your sleep by even your friends if you had something like that in 1776
Source-record spotlights
Yep! An AR-15 would made short work of them damn Red Coats.
Minigun. George is gonna love this.
My fully loaded AR that has a hundred round drum. After I rack up 100 redcoats, I'd find a machinist/gun maker that could help replicate it. At least the ammo. I bet you could build quite a fortune off that. Just mercking the Brits. 'Merica
What the counts show
Across 56 source records, the most common observable tactic structure is “Remove a step” (2 records). This is a wording pattern, not a measured outcome.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Observable tactic structures
Counts show source records whose wording matches the tactic structure; biological explanations remain commenter claims unless separately checked below.
Browse the original comments56 preserved records · 56 of 56 source records accounted for
Archive: 56 index entries preserve 56 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
A weapon carried for the commenter's own protectionAnswers from commenters who do not expect 1776 to be safe for them whatever else they bring.
Answer card naming what commenters would take to 1776, the reason they gave for taking it, and what the thread's own replies said it would actually do there: A weapon carried for the commenter's own protection
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
A weapon carried for the commenter's own protection
Situation: Arriving as somebody 1776 was dangerous to be
Why readers chose it: 8 records, and they change what the question is. Commenters who are black, gay or women answer not with an object for the century but with protection from it, and most of them say why in the same sentence that names the item. Two are explicit that the weapon is for themselves rather than for anyone else. One woman rules out bringing technology precisely because it would attract the witch accusation and picks a semi-automatic instead — and gets the standard ammunition reply that every other gun answer in the thread gets. This is the smallest weapons card and the most direct answer in the corpus to the question of who the hypothetical is comfortable for.
What readers reported: A gun with one bullet. Im gay and black and have no interest in living in 1776
Limit: Everything in this card is what somebody typed in a thread about a hypothetical — including the dates and mechanisms commenters used to correct each other. None of it is verified, and several of these answers are contradicted elsewhere in the same thread.
What the replies added2
Noble and ending slavery any sooner is a win, but the damage has been done by 1776. There would still be hell to pay.
Best to let the union know that after the confederates lose punish the absolute fuck out of them with no mercy. No kid gloves.
Source-record spotlights
Well, I'm black, so probably a gun to defend myself or a history textbook to let them know that us being in bondage will end and they're setting up the country for its bloodiest engagement in all of its history by leaving slavery as it is.
A gun because I’m black and don’t fancy being treated like property
Same. Unless maybe I could end up in Africa somewhere and improve the course of history there somehow. Still I think it would mentally destroy me too much
What the counts show
This report keeps all 8 source records for A weapon carried for the commenter's own protection together and surfaces traceable examples without converting anecdotes into proof.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments8 preserved records · 8 of 8 source records accounted for
Archive: 8 index entries preserve 8 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Military hardware at absurd scaleThe escalation answers, and the replies working out what a warship does with no crew, no harbour and no fuel.
Answer card naming what commenters would take to 1776, the reason they gave for taking it, and what the thread's own replies said it would actually do there: Military hardware at absurd scale
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Military hardware at absurd scale
Situation: Taking something too large for 1776 to argue with
Why readers chose it: 50 records escalating from a rifle to a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, and unusually for a joke cluster the thread works the logistics anyway. Commenters point out that you arrive on land so the reactor cannot be cooled, that a carrier without its crew is scrap, that you would starve long before any boarding party got past the close-in guns, and that the whole plan depends on the manuals being aboard. Named ships recur — the Ford class, the Nimitz, the Gerald R. Ford, the Abraham Lincoln — alongside tanks, an A-10, a helicopter gunship, an ICBM silo and a series of nuclear weapons. The reason the card is worth reading is that the objections are better than the answers.
What readers reported: Ford class aircraft carrier. Nuclear reactors will go for ages, modern computers with power, lots of room for activities and immune to weapons of the time. Just hope they have manuals onboard. Or does that not count as one thing?
Limit: Everything in this card is what somebody typed in a thread about a hypothetical — including the dates and mechanisms commenters used to correct each other. None of it is verified, and several of these answers are contradicted elsewhere in the same thread.
What the replies added2
Wish granted... You will now be deposited with the Chinese aircraft carrier type 004 with its full construction crew at what is currently 1909 Paris St in Aurora Colorado in the year 1776. We apologize but due to ongoing construction at the time of transportation the reactors have not been installed yet. We do offer our congratulations on achieving the world's first aircraft carrier land speed record. Thank you for your purchase and have a nice day.
Yes and I will deliver it to British forces and hopefully stave off the rebellion
Source-record spotlights
A fully-crewed, nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. Ain't no way I'm gonna live out the rest of my days with no electricity.
Fully operational and armed RS-28 Sarmat ICBM silo. Lake Superior doesn't stand a chance.
A Nuke! LET THE CHAOS BEGIN!
What the counts show
The exact phrase “an aircraft carrier” recurs across 4 of the 50 source records in Military hardware at absurd scale; the complete archive stays available below.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments50 preserved records · 50 of 50 source records accounted for
Archive: 50 index entries preserve 50 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
A disease or a poison, brought on purposeAnswers pointed the other way: the item is chosen for the harm it would do.
Answer card naming what commenters would take to 1776, the reason they gave for taking it, and what the thread's own replies said it would actually do there: A disease or a poison, brought on purpose
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
A disease or a poison, brought on purpose
Situation: Choosing the item for the harm it would do
Why readers chose it: 16 records where the answer is aimed at 1776 rather than offered to it: covid or coronavirus named eight separate times, plus polio, plague, ebola, fentanyl, microplastics, and LSD in a town's water supply. The reasons, where any are given, are retributive — the shoe on the other foot, the world would be better without America — and two are marked as jokes by their own authors. The card contains the only sustained counter-argument it gets: a long reply listing what the next two centuries would have lost. These are recorded because they are answers with stated reasons, not because the reasoning is endorsed.
What readers reported: modern diseases the colonial americans had no resistance to. Shoes on the other foot enjoy polio.
Limit: Everything in this card is what somebody typed in a thread about a hypothetical — including the dates and mechanisms commenters used to correct each other. None of it is verified, and several of these answers are contradicted elsewhere in the same thread.
What the replies added1
without America, WWI might not have been won by the Allies. & WWII definitely would've gone quite differently. there would've been nobody to lend all that money to rebuild Europe, and it might not have become the economic powerhouse it is today. Lots of diseases wouldn't have treatments or cures, medical advances would've been much slower. There would be countless wars all over the globe. Shipping would be a nightmare as there would be no Navy to police the seas, dispersing pirate ships or bad actors form other nation. There would be no Panama Canal, possibly no Suez Canal, no one would've been there to keep the USSR in check after WWII, leading to a rise of the eastern bloc, communist nation. NATO would likely not exist. China may not have become the manufacturing hub for the world without American companies relocating and American consumers buying their goods. The world would be held hostage my the Middle East and OPEC, paying whatever price was dictated. World prosperity wouldn't have increased as much as quickly as it did. There would be far fewer well-educated people in many nations, as American Universities educate many top minds from places across the world. There wouldn't be baseball. Or shrimp and grits. Or hot boiled peanuts. Or sweet tea. And then where would we be?
Source-record spotlights
14,000 Gallons of LSD and I’m spiking the local water system and then leaving
modern diseases the colonial americans had no resistance to. Shoes on the other foot enjoy polio.
Everyone's saying penicillin but I'd lwk bring polio. The world would be better without America
What the counts show
Within 16 source records, 1 ask a question and 0 explicitly say they intend to try the idea; neither signal is treated as an outcome.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments16 preserved records · 16 of 16 source records accounted for
Archive: 16 index entries preserve 16 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Answers for the other side: helping Britain winA small, consistent group answering the question as a British player rather than an American one.
Answer card naming what commenters would take to 1776, the reason they gave for taking it, and what the thread's own replies said it would actually do there: Answers for the other side: helping Britain win
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Answers for the other side: helping Britain win
Situation: Answering the question from the other side of the war
Why readers chose it: 12 records from commenters who are British, or who simply find the reversal more interesting than the patriotic version: a map of the ocean currents so the fleet reaches Yorktown before the French, the locations of the signatories, a letter to the king, a technology book for the British side, an explosive at the Pennsylvania State House. One argues the British side is the better bet and that a solar-charged phone would hand Britain a large technology advantage. The reply that lands is short — the technology we have now would be further behind — and one commenter sidesteps the loyalty question entirely by offering the plan of Washington's crossing to the highest bidder.
What readers reported: A map of the ocean currents so that the British fleet can arrive in Yorktown before the French and keep the US British.
Limit: Everything in this card is what somebody typed in a thread about a hypothetical — including the dates and mechanisms commenters used to correct each other. None of it is verified, and several of these answers are contradicted elsewhere in the same thread.
What the replies added2
Then we wouldn’t be nearly as far along in technology 💀
If you time travel for the shits and giggles, how can you not take some laxative laced pot brownies?
Source-record spotlights
Not even British, but you know, if I am going to time travel it is for the shits and giggles
I’m British so something to give us the edge in the revolutionary war and any future wars. Any book on advanced technology and how to make these systems from the ground up.
A history book that helps England win the war. If the American Revolution fails, it changes world history so much that none of us would be alive. Plus Hitler and Mr Rogers wouldn't be born either.
What the counts show
This report keeps all 12 source records for Answers for the other side: helping Britain win together and surfaces traceable examples without converting anecdotes into proof.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments12 preserved records · 12 of 12 source records accounted for
Archive: 12 index entries preserve 12 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
The exit answersThe refusal. The item is a way out, and the reasons given are specific. 42 records.
The time machine itselfThe most common single answer after penicillin, and the one that refuses the premise outright.
Answer card naming what commenters would take to 1776, the reason they gave for taking it, and what the thread's own replies said it would actually do there: The time machine itself
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
The time machine itself
Situation: Refusing the premise and taking the way home
Why readers chose it: 32 records, one of the larger single answers in the corpus, and it is the thread arguing with its own question. The reasoning is stated plainly and repeatedly: 1776 has nothing these commenters want, they do not expect to survive it, and a machine that got them there must exist, so it is fair game. Several sharpen the loophole — a return pad, a second use of the machine, a machine that comes with its own batteries, one set for 2029 — and one takes the opportunity to route via 1990 and buy shares on the way through. Nobody argues against it, which is itself worth noting: it is the only large answer in the thread that draws no rebuttal at all.
What readers reported: How about another time machine so I can make a return trip instead of living out the rest of my life in the Colonial Era? I mean, we already know there must be one of those around for the original question to be meaningful.
Limit: Everything in this card is what somebody typed in a thread about a hypothetical — including the dates and mechanisms commenters used to correct each other. None of it is verified, and several of these answers are contradicted elsewhere in the same thread.
What the replies added2
Great Scott! Now you're thinking fourth dimensionally!
Upon return you are immediately arrested for walking out of a barns and noble [link removed]
Source-record spotlights
As a black man, I'm taking a way back to 2026.
The time machine so I can set it to 2029 and leave
A time machine so I can leave
What the counts show
The exact phrase “a time machine so i can” recurs across 3 of the 32 source records in The time machine itself; the complete archive stays available below.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments32 preserved records · 32 of 32 source records accounted for
Archive: 32 index entries preserve 32 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
A way to die on your own termsAnswers where the item is an exit, given by commenters who state plainly why they do not expect to last.
Answer card naming what commenters would take to 1776, the reason they gave for taking it, and what the thread's own replies said it would actually do there: A way to die on your own terms
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
A way to die on your own terms
Situation: An item chosen because the commenter does not expect to survive
Why readers chose it: 10 records, and they are unsparing about the reasoning. A cyanide capsule, a gun with one round, a syringe of morphine, strychnine — chosen because the traveller would arrive naked at an unknown location, because the odds of meeting another human before dying of thirst are poor, because a named condition would kill them slowly, or simply because they do not want to live there. One commenter asks the question the rest of the thread skipped: how long are we staying, because the answer changes what you bring, and he gives three different items for three different durations. Read with the time-machine card, this is the corpus's clearest statement that a substantial minority treats the hypothetical as a punishment.
What readers reported: A cyanide pill I guess. I am not traveling back in time naked to destination unknown. Did they even have toilet paper? I am not even going to consider living anywhere before 1976.
Limit: Everything in this card is what somebody typed in a thread about a hypothetical — including the dates and mechanisms commenters used to correct each other. None of it is verified, and several of these answers are contradicted elsewhere in the same thread.
What the replies added2
lmao someone else said a way to get back, seems like a better option
In 1976, people smoked in grocery stores and doctors’ offices and usually had 4 TV channels.
Source-record spotlights
A cyanide pill I guess. I am not traveling back in time naked to destination unknown. Did they even have toilet paper? I am not even going to consider living anywhere before 1976.
Before deciding that we all need a qualifying question of how long are we in 1776 because if it's forever I'm taking strychnine. A month or shorter, bag full of bear spray. Not sure about a year or longer.
A fucking cyanide capsule.
What the counts show
The exact phrase “a gun to shoot myself with” recurs across 2 of the 10 source records in A way to die on your own terms; the complete archive stays available below.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments10 preserved records · 10 of 10 source records accounted for
Archive: 10 index entries preserve 10 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Staying yourself: the body, comfort and boredom answersSmall, unembarrassed answers about surviving the day rather than the century. 92 records.
Glasses, teeth and the body parts modern medicine props upSmall answers about the prosthetics 1776 has no version of.
Answer card naming what commenters would take to 1776, the reason they gave for taking it, and what the thread's own replies said it would actually do there: Glasses, teeth and the body parts modern medicine props up
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Glasses, teeth and the body parts modern medicine props up
Situation: Replacing the small pieces of modern medicine a body relies on
Why readers chose it: 7 records about prosthetics rather than cures: spectacles in the commenter's own prescription, a night guard, dentures. The reason is that these are cheap and invisible now and simply unavailable then, so the loss is total and immediate — one commenter notes his hearing aids would be flat inside a day and takes the glasses instead. The dentures answer is the only one in the card aimed at somebody else, and the somebody is George Washington. Nothing here is argued with, which is the point: these are the answers with no upside and no risk, only a body that stops working without them.
What readers reported: I think I would take my glasses, since my hearing aids would run out of charge in a day or so. Good luck to me.
Limit: Everything in this card is what somebody typed in a thread about a hypothetical — including the dates and mechanisms commenters used to correct each other. None of it is verified, and several of these answers are contradicted elsewhere in the same thread.
What the replies added2
I can't believe no one is thinking about brining Ben Franklin a box of pornography. He would have loved it
Great idea, then his slaves wouldn't have to give up their teeth to make dentures for him.
Source-record spotlights
A good set of modern dentures for my new pal, George Washington.
One thing as in an actual single item? Because a sweet first aid kit if not. If a single item, its gonna be my nightguard. I don't want my teeth to get worse and brushing along wont save them. I think everything else I'd need to survive would be there, as terrible as it would be.
My glasses, no chance without em
What the counts show
Within 7 source records, 1 ask a question and 0 explicitly say they intend to try the idea; neither signal is treated as an outcome.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments7 preserved records · 7 of 7 source records accounted for
Archive: 7 index entries preserve 7 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Clothing, washing and the everyday kit you would missThe answers that skip world-changing entirely and name the thing the commenter would miss on the first day.
Answer card naming what commenters would take to 1776, the reason they gave for taking it, and what the thread's own replies said it would actually do there: Clothing, washing and the everyday kit you would miss
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Clothing, washing and the everyday kit you would miss
Situation: The everyday object the commenter would miss on the first day
Why readers chose it: 26 records that decline to change anything. Toilet paper is named five times, a lighter three, plus boots, long underwear, deodorant, toothpaste, floss, a towel, an air conditioner, a multi-tool and a pencil with an eraser on it. Two commenters give reasons that are more than preference: one is already an eighteenth-century reenactor and would bring his own kit because it lets him blend in and work, and one points out that a disposable lighter would be genuinely ahead of its time, since the mechanical lighter does not arrive until 1823 and matches after that. The card is more useful than it looks, because it is the only place the thread describes the daily texture of the destination rather than its politics.
What readers reported: Warmest long underwear I can find or my really warm boots.
Limit: Everything in this card is what somebody typed in a thread about a hypothetical — including the dates and mechanisms commenters used to correct each other. None of it is verified, and several of these answers are contradicted elsewhere in the same thread.
What the replies added2
Not a bad idea. You could show it to Ben Franklin and go into business together.
Charmin, the colonialists would go crazy for triple ply. You'll be the most popular fellow in town square!
Source-record spotlights
Lots of toilet paper.
The mechanical lighter was invented in 1823, three years before matches. So your bic would be useful for a while.
Probably need one of those powdered wigs, won't I?
What the counts show
The exact phrase “a lifetime supply of” recurs across 2 of the 26 source records in Clothing, washing and the everyday kit you would miss; the complete archive stays available below.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments26 preserved records · 26 of 26 source records accounted for
Archive: 26 index entries preserve 26 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
The answers only the women in the thread gaveA distinct set of answers about what 1776 would specifically be like for a woman.
Answer card naming what commenters would take to 1776, the reason they gave for taking it, and what the thread's own replies said it would actually do there: The answers only the women in the thread gave
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
The answers only the women in the thread gave
Situation: Answering for what 1776 would specifically be like as a woman
Why readers chose it: 10 records forming a set nobody else in the thread produces: a menstrual cup, a bra, an IUD or implant, contraception, and — twice — something that would let the commenter pass as a man. The reasons are given directly and are about the destination rather than the object: rags instead of products, no control over childbearing, and one flat description of what womanhood there would be. One reply argues the opposite way, that the Enlightenment is precisely the moment to start the emancipation argument early if you can reach the right people. Elsewhere in the thread a commenter looks at the same problem and sees a business in it.
What readers reported: All these people being altruistic with things that would help all man-kind. But my first thought was a menstrual cup. I’m not going back to literal rags, thank you very much.
Limit: Everything in this card is what somebody typed in a thread about a hypothetical — including the dates and mechanisms commenters used to correct each other. None of it is verified, and several of these answers are contradicted elsewhere in the same thread.
What the replies added2
Why tho? Surely the freedom of not having one would be nice?
You might as well take a gas mask at the same time. Unless you catch each and every one right after their twice yearly bath.
Source-record spotlights
Something that would make me look like a man. Womanhood in 1776 was pretty fucking bleak.
You’d be landing in Patriarchy Central. On the flipside you could start the emancipation wave early. It’s the Age of Enlightenment so you got a good chance if you connect with the right thinkers and authors.
A modern protection, so to tell the people not to overpopulate the earth. 🌚
What the counts show
Within 10 source records, 1 ask a question and 0 explicitly say they intend to try the idea; neither signal is treated as an outcome.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments10 preserved records · 10 of 10 source records accounted for
Archive: 10 index entries preserve 10 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Something to read, play or watchAnswers that assume a great many empty evenings.
Answer card naming what commenters would take to 1776, the reason they gave for taking it, and what the thread's own replies said it would actually do there: Something to read, play or watch
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Something to read, play or watch
Situation: Something for the evenings
Why readers chose it: 13 records assuming a great deal of empty time, and honest about it: a novel, a games console, a hacky sack, a heavy metal album chosen specifically for what amplified sound would do to people who had never heard any, a projector and a reel of Roots. Two commenters state the reasoning outright — that going back sounds boring, and that there would be a lot of downtime. The battery objection that dominates the rest of the technology answers applies to about half of these and is never once raised, which suggests the card is not really about feasibility.
What readers reported: My Steam Deck because I'm fucking stupid. It sounds so boring to go back to that time so I'll need entertainment but it's not like I'll actually be able to lay around and play the damn thing. I'd have to rely on my natural charisma and wit to win these 1776 ass motherfuckers over and I'm afraid I'd just go over their heads and they'd drown me in a lake
Limit: Everything in this card is what somebody typed in a thread about a hypothetical — including the dates and mechanisms commenters used to correct each other. None of it is verified, and several of these answers are contradicted elsewhere in the same thread.
Source-record spotlights
A hacky sack. Wanna hacky some sack with the founding brochachos
I'd take the book ' Bridget Jones Diary'. No real reason I just enjoyed reading it
An all in one movie projection set up. Outfitted with a large screen projector, speakers, solar charged battery packs to power it, and a large capacity hard drive with every movie and music ever made, and a small computer with LCD screen to operate. It's all in one box so it counts as one item. 😆 I would be the greatest entertainment house to ever exists.
What the counts show
This report keeps all 13 source records for Something to read, play or watch together and surfaces traceable examples without converting anecdotes into proof.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments13 preserved records · 13 of 13 source records accounted for
Archive: 13 index entries preserve 13 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Food, drink and the vicesAnswers chosen for a taste, a habit, or for what a modern flavour would do to an 18th-century palate.
Answer card naming what commenters would take to 1776, the reason they gave for taking it, and what the thread's own replies said it would actually do there: Food, drink and the vices
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Food, drink and the vices
Situation: Taking a taste, or a habit, that 1776 has no version of
Why readers chose it: 23 records naming a snack, a drink or a drug. The habit answers — vapes three times, cannabis in four different forms — are about the commenter and are stated without elaboration. The food answers are mostly about the reaction: sour sweets, hot crisps, instant noodle seasoning, an energy drink for George Washington, and one commenter who wants to watch people whose sweetest available thing is cake meet a modern sour candy. Another notes, plausibly, that a single flavour-blasted cracker would be overwhelming to an eighteenth-century palate. The seasoning answer is the only one in the card that argues for trade value rather than novelty.
What readers reported: I mean, I would kind of want to troll people. Imagine giving people who the sweetest thing they get is cake for gobs of money and then one day some dude in weird looking clothes shows up with sour patch kids? or warheads. their tastebuds wouldn't know how to handle that lol.
Limit: Everything in this card is what somebody typed in a thread about a hypothetical — including the dates and mechanisms commenters used to correct each other. None of it is verified, and several of these answers are contradicted elsewhere in the same thread.
Source-record spotlights
I'm bringing a taco
Baja blast zero sugar
Some seasonings, you just know they would live you if you had some rare shit
What the counts show
Within 23 source records, 2 ask a question and 0 explicitly say they intend to try the idea; neither signal is treated as an outcome.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments23 preserved records · 23 of 23 source records accounted for
Archive: 23 index entries preserve 23 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
A vehicle brought to show offVehicles named for the spectacle rather than the engineering — one of them the second most-upvoted comment in the thread.
Answer card naming what commenters would take to 1776, the reason they gave for taking it, and what the thread's own replies said it would actually do there: A vehicle brought to show off
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
A vehicle brought to show off
Situation: A vehicle named for the spectacle rather than the engineering
Why readers chose it: 10 records, one of them among the five most-upvoted comments in the whole thread — a pickup truck with a novelty accessory on the tow hitch, offered with no plan whatsoever and answered almost entirely with more jokes. The rest are cars, a Hummer, a diesel dually and a four-hundred-foot yacht. The one exception is an electric pickup with solar panels, which is the only answer in the card that would still work on the second day. It is kept separate from the vehicles chosen for their engineering because nothing here is offered as useful — and it is the clearest demonstration in the corpus that a very high upvote count is measuring something other than the quality of the answer.
What readers reported: A Ford Raptor with a tow hitch ball sack
Limit: Everything in this card is what somebody typed in a thread about a hypothetical — including the dates and mechanisms commenters used to correct each other. None of it is verified, and several of these answers are contradicted elsewhere in the same thread.
What the replies added2
[George Washington was a Dodge Challenger guy.]([link removed]
F150 Lightning and solar panels. Freedom runs on sunshine, bitches!
Source-record spotlights
A Ford Raptor with a tow hitch ball sack
At least go with the Raptor Bronco so you can sleep in it easier.
400' yacht with full fuel tanks and fully stocked provisions.
What the counts show
This report keeps all 10 source records for A vehicle brought to show off together and surfaces traceable examples without converting anecdotes into proof.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments10 preserved records · 10 of 10 source records accounted for
Archive: 10 index entries preserve 10 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Your own family, house and pastThree answers that use the trip to go looking for the commenter's own ancestors.
Answer card naming what commenters would take to 1776, the reason they gave for taking it, and what the thread's own replies said it would actually do there: Your own family, house and past
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Your own family, house and past
Situation: Using the trip for a private errand
Why readers chose it: 3 records, and the only answers in the corpus that treat 1776 as a place where the commenter already has people. One would carry enough genealogical information to find an ancestor who fought at Breed's Hill and talk to him; one would bring the deed to a house built in 1770 and still standing; one is going to look for relatives on family land in North Carolina. None of them proposes changing anything at all. They are grouped together because the item is chosen for a private errand rather than for the century, which is a genuinely different use of the hypothetical from every other card here.
What readers reported: Enough information to track down my great, great, great great etc. grandfather who fought at Breed's Hill (later known as the Battle of Bunker Hill) so I could track him down and talk to him.
Limit: Everything in this card is what somebody typed in a thread about a hypothetical — including the dates and mechanisms commenters used to correct each other. None of it is verified, and several of these answers are contradicted elsewhere in the same thread.
Source-record spotlights
Family tree , im finding my relatives from that time period! We have family land in NC.
The deed to my house. I bought the house this year in 2026, and the house was built in 1770. Would be cool to show someone that even 250+ years later the house is still going strong.
Enough information to track down my great, great, great great etc. grandfather who fought at Breed's Hill (later known as the Battle of Bunker Hill) so I could track him down and talk to him.
What the counts show
This report keeps all 3 source records for Your own family, house and past together and surfaces traceable examples without converting anecdotes into proof.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments3 preserved records · 3 of 3 source records accounted for
Archive: 3 index entries preserve 3 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Taking a personAnswers that read “one thing” loosely enough to include somebody. 16 records.
A person from another century, dropped into 1776Answers that read the rules as permitting a person, chosen for what they would say to the Congress.
Answer card naming what commenters would take to 1776, the reason they gave for taking it, and what the thread's own replies said it would actually do there: A person from another century, dropped into 1776
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
A person from another century, dropped into 1776
Situation: Reading “one thing” as permitting a person
Why readers chose it: 5 records that take a person instead of an object, on the reasoning that an argument is more persuasive delivered by somebody than written down. Martin Luther King is named as the answer to a founding the commenter calls fatally flawed; Obama is offered when that commenter concedes he had misread the prompt; one asks simply whether a clever person counts. The same commenter who proposes King also rules out bringing any manufacturing knowledge at all, on the grounds that it would only make slaveholders richer — the only place in the thread where somebody excludes an entire category of answer for that reason.
What readers reported: I would take MLK. The founding of the United States was fatally flawed, so much so that a) it broke 85 years later, and b) I cannot think of a better ‘cure’ for racism. Certainly don’t bring along any sort of technology or manufacturing process. That just leads to slaveholders becoming wealthy, and nobody wants that.
Limit: Everything in this card is what somebody typed in a thread about a hypothetical — including the dates and mechanisms commenters used to correct each other. None of it is verified, and several of these answers are contradicted elsewhere in the same thread.
What the replies added1
I would take MLK. The founding of the United States was fatally flawed, so much so that a) it broke 85 years later, and b) I cannot think of a better ‘cure’ for racism. Certainly don’t bring along any sort of technology or manufacturing process. That just leads to slaveholders becoming wealthy, and nobody wants that.
Source-record spotlights
Can I take someone from now and leave them back then?
Yeah, I know, I didn’t read the prompt, my bad. Obama then. If anyone could change 1776 for the better, maybe he could.
What about taking a very clever person back with me ?
What the counts show
Within 5 source records, 2 ask a question and 0 explicitly say they intend to try the idea; neither signal is treated as an outcome.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments5 preserved records · 5 of 5 source records accounted for
Archive: 5 index entries preserve 5 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Someone, or a pet, so you are not there aloneThe other half of that idea: the person or animal named so the commenter is not alone in 1776.
Answer card naming what commenters would take to 1776, the reason they gave for taking it, and what the thread's own replies said it would actually do there: Someone, or a pet, so you are not there alone
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Someone, or a pet, so you are not there alone
Situation: Not being in 1776 by yourself
Why readers chose it: 11 records naming a spouse, a partner, a cat, a dog, a family — and in three cases the commenter they are replying to. The reasons are stated more often here than almost anywhere else in the thread, and none of them is strategic: not wanting to be burned at the stake alone, not wanting a partner to think you had simply vanished, a cat who would be fine because she is a mouser. These commenters have read the question as a one-way trip and answered the loneliness rather than the century, and it is the one card where no two reasons resemble each other.
What readers reported: My boyfriend <3 I'd hate for him to think I just disappeared and wouldn't want to be stuck in 1776 alone.
Limit: Everything in this card is what somebody typed in a thread about a hypothetical — including the dates and mechanisms commenters used to correct each other. None of it is verified, and several of these answers are contradicted elsewhere in the same thread.
What the replies added1
Nothing says love like being at a warm fire on a cold night together.
Source-record spotlights
My wife. No way I'm getting burned at the stake alone.
My boyfriend <3 I'd hate for him to think I just disappeared and wouldn't want to be stuck in 1776 alone.
hard choice, and it'll probably be useless overall, but my answer would be: you
What the counts show
Within 11 source records, 1 ask a question and 0 explicitly say they intend to try the idea; neither signal is treated as an outcome.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments11 preserved records · 11 of 11 source records accounted for
Archive: 11 index entries preserve 11 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
The arguments the thread had with itselfFour running disputes: the reception, the rules, the landing site, and whether any of it changes anything. 88 records.
Would 1776 burn you as a witch, or listen to you?The thread's biggest argument about its own premise, with the Enlightenment and the Inquisition both entered as evidence.
Answer card naming what commenters would take to 1776, the reason they gave for taking it, and what the thread's own replies said it would actually do there: Would 1776 burn you as a witch, or listen to you?
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Would 1776 burn you as a witch, or listen to you?
Situation: Whether 1776 would burn you, listen to you, or simply ignore you
Why readers chose it: 36 records, and the thread's largest argument about its own premise. The reflex to shout “witch” runs through the whole corpus; this card is what happens when somebody pushes back on it, and the pushback is dated. The major witch hunts were a century past, this is the tail of the Enlightenment, the colonies were already inoculating against smallpox and arguing about the ethics of it, and one four-word reply points out it is the late eighteenth century rather than the twelfth. Against that: the Spanish Inquisition ran to 1834, witch killings continue in several countries today, and the year says nothing about where on earth you land. A second strand argues the real risk is not the stake but being disbelieved — dismissed as a crackpot, lobotomised, or simply ignored by the doctors of the day.
What readers reported: Not at all. This is the tail end of the "Age of Enlightenment" where old superstitions were done away and the scientific method really started to take hold. While there were holdouts elsewhere in the world, the American colonies were rather open with new medical practices. Outbreaks of disease were very common and they wanted any type of relief from seeing their children die. Go partner up with Ben Franklin and change the world.
Limit: Everything in this card is what somebody typed in a thread about a hypothetical — including the dates and mechanisms commenters used to correct each other. None of it is verified, and several of these answers are contradicted elsewhere in the same thread.
What the replies added2
And 1776 means they (obviously) speak english. And not some "well its sort of english if you squint" kinda thing, it's just english. These questions are always asking about going back to the fuckin middle ages and it's like, pretty much everything you take back will get you hanged as a witch or a spy, and you won't be able to communicate with a single soul to tell them otherwise.
I watched an interesting YouTube video where as it played, English was spoken and every 10 seconds or so it advanced 100 or so years. You would be surprised at when you start to actually understand what’s being said, it’s basically around 1500 or a little after that. Anything before that and it sounds really really foreign.
Source-record spotlights
Not a chance. This is a good read: tl;dr even common people in the Colonies were aware of smallpox and it significantly stunted recruitment efforts for the war. Washington instituted a policy of inoculation in 1777 to ensure there were enough healthy men to fight. The strategic value of a modern medical textbook would have been recognized immediately if you could get to the right folks.
nobody would believe you least of all Doctors of the time.
No matter what you bring, your doomed. Anything from the future, and they will call you a witch/wizard and put you to death
What the counts show
The exact phrase “youd probably just” recurs across 2 of the 36 source records in Would 1776 burn you as a witch, or listen to you?; the complete archive stays available below.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments36 preserved records · 36 of 36 source records accounted for
Archive: 36 index entries preserve 36 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
“That is more than one thing”Rules-lawyering as its own genre, from the solar panel glued to the back of a Kindle to an entire library in one binder.
Answer card naming what commenters would take to 1776, the reason they gave for taking it, and what the thread's own replies said it would actually do there: “That is more than one thing”
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
“That is more than one thing”
Situation: Testing what the one-item rule actually allows
Why readers chose it: 29 records of rules-lawyering, and it is a genre rather than a nuisance. The moves are consistent: a solar panel taped to the back of the device, a magazine that comes with the gun, an entire library cut up and rebound into one binder, a warship that arrives with everything a warship comes with, a house, a city, and one commenter asking whether “the library” counts as a single thing for the purposes of the spell. The counter-moves are equally consistent — quoting the words “only take 1 thing” back at the answer, and pointing out that the question said take rather than carry. Nobody adjudicates, and this exchange is most of what gives the thread its shape.
What readers reported: You could cut the pages out of multiple books, hole-punch the pages, and put it in one custom-sized binder to meet the rule of taking one thing. The question becomes what books to include and how big you could make it to physically carry it, at least as long as the transport back in time takes to be completed. Edit: better to put the content into a new word file and reduce the font size to whatever size that could be read with the magnifying glasses of the day.
Limit: Everything in this card is what somebody typed in a thread about a hypothetical — including the dates and mechanisms commenters used to correct each other. None of it is verified, and several of these answers are contradicted elsewhere in the same thread.
What the replies added2
All these people "bring this WITH that" - if that's the case, I'm bringing the empire state building with <insert a bajillion fucking things in it>.
Stick a loaded 100 round drum in and pray it doesn't jam
Source-record spotlights
stretching the definition of "one thing"
Is fort Knox one thing? Because then I have gold AND security!
My house. I think I found a loophole.
What the counts show
Within 29 source records, 8 ask a question and 0 explicitly say they intend to try the idea; neither signal is treated as an outcome.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments29 preserved records · 29 of 29 source records accounted for
Archive: 29 index entries preserve 29 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Where — and when — do you actually land?Commenters asking what the question leaves out: the place, the duration, and whether you arrive with clothes on.
Answer card naming what commenters would take to 1776, the reason they gave for taking it, and what the thread's own replies said it would actually do there: Where — and when — do you actually land?
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Where — and when — do you actually land?
Situation: The variables the question never specifies
Why readers chose it: 13 records asking what the hypothetical leaves out, and between them they identify four gaps that each change the answer: whether you arrive clothed, where on earth you land, how long you stay, and whether you come back at all. One commenter points out that a naked traveller has a problem no object solves; another that everyone is assuming the United States when the year says nothing of the kind; another that the genuinely useful item for Oklahoma in 1776 would be a Kiowa-to-English dictionary. One imagines being deposited on the summit of Everest with a pocketful of penicillin. These count as answers because each names the specific missing variable rather than merely complaining about the question.
What readers reported: I'm not sure there is any one thing I can take that will help a naked time traveler from being killed immediately.
Limit: Everything in this card is what somebody typed in a thread about a hypothetical — including the dates and mechanisms commenters used to correct each other. None of it is verified, and several of these answers are contradicted elsewhere in the same thread.
What the replies added2
According to the time travel documentary Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 3, you keep your underwear unless the person you are swapping with also wears underwear, in which case you will appear in their underwear.
Wrong. Terminator has long since established that you can only time travel naked.
Source-record spotlights
According to the time travel documentary Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 3, you keep your underwear unless the person you are swapping with also wears underwear, in which case you will appear in their underwear.
ITT - people who assume they have to end up in the states
I'm not sure there is any one thing I can take that will help a naked time traveler from being killed immediately.
What the counts show
Within 13 source records, 5 ask a question and 0 explicitly say they intend to try the idea; neither signal is treated as an outcome.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments13 preserved records · 13 of 13 source records accounted for
Archive: 13 index entries preserve 13 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Does changing anything even work?The determinist objection, raised in several forms, that whatever you do there has already happened.
Answer card naming what commenters would take to 1776, the reason they gave for taking it, and what the thread's own replies said it would actually do there: Does changing anything even work?
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Does changing anything even work?
Situation: Whether the trip can change anything at all
Why readers chose it: 10 records making the determinist objection in several forms: whatever you did there has already happened, so your failure is baked into the history you came from — or your success is, and you would never be able to tell which. Two commenters work it through carefully, one concluding that you can only change events if your knowledge of them was wrong to begin with. A smaller group treats the butterfly effect as the interesting part rather than the objection, and one points out that it is the premise of every answer in the thread, including the ones about preventing the Civil War. Nobody in this card names an item; they are here because they are arguing about what any item could possibly do.
What readers reported: But see, no matter if you succeed or fail, that is already what happened, so you can only change events (to your own knowledge) if your knowledge of those events were wrong. If you have correct information about the past, then you will find that your efforts were already reflected in that timeline.
Limit: Everything in this card is what somebody typed in a thread about a hypothetical — including the dates and mechanisms commenters used to correct each other. None of it is verified, and several of these answers are contradicted elsewhere in the same thread.
What the replies added1
Yeah I wrote a short story about this once. Basically anything they try doesn't work because it had already been done and then they realize that they may have changed things a million times but from their own perspective it already happened each time because it's all relative. So even if things were radically different, they weren't from their perspective.
Where commenters report limits
Yeah I wrote a short story about this once. Basically anything they try doesn't work because it had already been done and then they realize that they may have changed things a million times but from their own perspective it already happened each time because it's all relative. So even if things were radically different, they weren't from their perspective.
Source-record spotlights
So honestly it doesn't matter. Hear me out, whatever you plan to change, you failed already, so...
But see, no matter if you succeed or fail, that is already what happened, so you can only change events (to your own knowledge) if your knowledge of those events were wrong. If you have correct information about the past, then you will find that your efforts were already reflected in that timeline.
I think this question ignores the butterfly effect....
What the counts show
Within 10 source records, 0 explicitly report a benefit and 1 explicitly report a limit or failure. These are attributed experiences, not effectiveness data.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments10 preserved records · 10 of 10 source records accounted for
Archive: 10 index entries preserve 10 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
How this catalog was built
Source: Reddit comments — 1 thread, 1445 comments (622 top-level, 823 replies)
Selected comments from the discussion
This export carries real like counts and timestamps. The first 18 are the most resonant on-topic top-level comment from each stage of the discussion, ranked by resonance within their arrival-time cohort so later arrivals are not penalised for having had less time to accumulate likes. The last 6 received no likes at all and were chosen for the specificity of what they describe.
How the discussion breaks down
Relative volume of distinct source-backed records across every reviewed category in this corpus.
A message for the men writing the Constitution
156 distinct coded comment records5 normalized answers
Weapons, and the war
142 distinct coded comment records5 normalized answers
Carrying the whole library: Wikipedia and the power problem
129 distinct coded comment records6 normalized answers
Not dying: the medicine answers
124 distinct coded comment records4 normalized answers
Staying yourself: the body, comfort and boredom answers
92 distinct coded comment records7 normalized answers
The arguments the thread had with itself
88 distinct coded comment records4 normalized answers
The books written for exactly this question
72 distinct coded comment records4 normalized answers
Getting rich instead of saving anyone
61 distinct coded comment records4 normalized answers
Skipping ahead: one industrial process
47 distinct coded comment records4 normalized answers
The exit answers
42 distinct coded comment records2 normalized answers
The low-tech answers commenters said would save more lives
22 distinct coded comment records3 normalized answers
Taking a person
16 distinct coded comment records2 normalized answers
Which answers the thread checked, and what broke
The useful test to put to a hypothetical thread is not whether an answer sounds clever, but whether anybody underneath it worked out what the thing would actually do on arrival. This one does that repeatedly, and the answers that get checked hardest are the popular ones. Every quotation below is a commenter's own words, reproduced exactly and attributed to its source record; none of it is verified beyond that.
The two biggest answers are both corrected from underneath. The most-upvoted comment in the corpus is “A modern medical textbook would be incredibly valuable” — and the replies do not leave it alone. One puts the practical objection in a sentence: “Hope you're a doctor, otherwise that's just 5 pounds of very expensive paper” Another works through what a modern text actually assumes and finds most of it unreachable: “scurvy was cured by 1776. I'll give you pellagra. I'm fairly certain that modern medical textbooks don't have information about how to train and manage a worldwide system of therapists. If you tell people they have to work on getting people trained to do cognitive behavioral therapy or psychotherapy, you're going to get a lot of blank stares. Without indoor plumbing, sanitation efforts are kinda dead in the water. Anti-mosquito measures aren't really detailed in medical textbooks. How would you get people to be on the right path to study medications? They were focused on gases and metallurgy, and slowly working on the elements. They were just discovering oxygen. By the time there was anybody alive who would understand any of what you're talking about, you'd be long dead.” The same thing happens to penicillin, the thread's other headline answer and the subject of 51 records. A commenter who knows the manufacturing history explains why the culture alone is not the win: “Nothing. Penicillin's properties were known for 50 years before someone was able to come up with the industrial process to concentrate it enough to be useful for treating internal disease.” and another lists the missing plant: “So as far as I can tell they would be able to make use of it if given instruction, but without access to refrigeration or the technical ability to aerate large tanks of mold mass production would be impossible. It would just be generally harder in every way, I imagine sterilization and avoiding contamination would prove to be a pain in the ass.”
Every device answer runs into the same wall. 39 records propose a phone, tablet, laptop or e-reader with an offline library on it; 37 more are the argument that follows, and it starts with the second-most-upvoted reply in that whole branch: “And only for a few hours until the battery ran out and you couldn’t charge it” Solar chargers are proposed and then disputed on two grounds — the rules, and the physics: “> solar powered battery Can only bring one item. Also the solar panels on the batteries are useless, not enough power to recharge the battery and the device.” The paper version escapes the battery and immediately acquires a different problem, measured by a commenter with a search engine: “It said take, not carry. But fair. My light googling says it would be like 10 Eiffel towers high”
The cheapest answers are the ones nobody argues with. 22 records answer with handwashing, clean water or soap, and they attract corrections about history rather than about feasibility. One record states the mechanism and the reason it needs no buy-in from anyone: “Skip the textbook and take the oral rehydration formula. Sugar and salt in clean water at the right ratio pulls fluid through the gut wall, and dehydration from dysentery is what did most of the killing then. No lab, no industry, and nobody has to accept germ theory first.” Another puts the whole case in one line: “Just teaching them to boil water and wash hands will save millions”
And a large part of the thread is not answering the question at all. 823 of the 1445 records are replies (57%), and 36 of them are one argument: whether 1776 would burn you for whatever you brought. It is settled, repeatedly, by people supplying dates. One reply is four words: “It's the late 18th century, not the 12th...” A longer one makes the positive case: “Not at all. This is the tail end of the "Age of Enlightenment" where old superstitions were done away and the scientific method really started to take hold. While there were holdouts elsewhere in the world, the American colonies were rather open with new medical practices. Outbreaks of disease were very common and they wanted any type of relief from seeing their children die. Go partner up with Ben Franklin and change the world.” The same corrective instinct polices the get-rich answers — aluminium is met with “Not to poop on your popsicle, but, the extractable amount at the time you appear is mainly zilch. It would be about 50 years after you arrive that trace amounts are discovered. It would then be 75 years after you arive that the novelty amounts would be used in jewelry. Electrolytic extraction technique for scalable extraction would be 110 years after you arrived. So, maybe you want to readjust your idea for the arrival timeline?” and the rifle answers with “Except cased ammunition is near a century away.” Separately, 42 records decline the premise and take a way out instead.
Browse the original comments1,445 audited comments and replies
Dataset, coverage, and methodology
How this was counted
The working unit is a comment record, not a person and not a distinct object. All 1445 canonical comments from this one thread (622 top-level, 823 replies) were read thread by thread and each was assigned to exactly one answer card or one exclusion bucket.
991 records name something to take, or argue about what a named answer would do once you were there, and all 991 appear in the complete index below. The other 454 break down as jokes and riffs that name nothing to take (210), reactions, agreement and applause (51), off-topic tangents (46), present-day political arguments (33), a sub-thread about the commenters' own antibiotic allergies (27), sexual and scatological gags (19), questions and requests put to another commenter (17), fragments, single words and unreadable text (16), one-line “witch” replies with no argument attached (13), a templated verdict line pasted under unrelated answers (10), chatter about a named book's edition, price or availability (10), one comment about the thread itself (1), and one comment removed by the platform (1).
Cards are grouped by what the item is for, not by what kind of object it is. A phone carried for an offline copy of Wikipedia (39 records) and a phone carried for the reaction it would get are separate answers, and a correction stays with the answer it corrects rather than being filed as a separate topic.
991 counts classified comment records, not distinct objects; the thread produced 46 distinct answers plus four arguments about its own premise. Repeats were deliberately kept: 51 records discuss penicillin and 24 discuss a modern medical textbook, and each stays its own row.
Jokes were not excluded for being jokes. A joke that names something to take is an answer and is filed as one; a joke that names nothing and adds no reason about somebody else's answer is in the exclusion buckets with the reason recorded.
Upvote counts are the raw numbers as captured. The first hour of this thread holds 60.3% of all its upvotes, so ranking by raw upvotes would mostly rank arrival time; the answers below are ordered by how many records they hold, not by popularity.
Nothing here is verified. The historical dates and mechanisms on this page are what commenters typed at each other, quoted exactly and attributed to a source record. Read it as a record of how one crowd argued about a hypothetical, not as history.
Member discussion